Live Report Thursday 2 March 2017

Plenary Live: Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker presents White Paper on the Future of Europe Thu, 2 March 2017 | DeHavilland EU Live Coverage

Summary

Plenary Session, Brussels, 01/03/2017, 15:00-17:10

On 1 March 2017, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, presented the White Paper on the Future of Europe to the plenary assembly of the EP.

The White Paper presented five scenarios for the future of the EU, by the titles “Carrying on”, “Nothing but the Single Market”, “Those who want to do more do more”, “Doing less more efficiently” and “Doing much more together”. During his speech, Mr Juncker said that he would not say which his favourite option was, as the Commission did not want to “dictate”, but to make decisions in an inclusive way.

While the EPP group welcomed the White Paper and its structure, the S&D said that the Commission should have taken the lead and present the EU its input for action.

In full

Views from the Commission

The President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, reminded MEPs that the 60th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome would soon be celebrated and stated that this would also mark the birth of the EU 27.

He said that it was time to answer to a question as old as the EU itself: “Quo vadis, Europe 27?”.

He then moved on to considering present-day challenges, calling for the EU to face them and “remain awake and alert”. He said that “the future of Europe should not become hostage to elections, party politics or short term domestic views of success”. He then called for the EU to move forwards following Brexit.

Going back to the initial question, Mr Juncker asked again where Europe was heading. He said that “our task will be to say clearly what Europe can and cannot do”. He brought as an example youth unemployment, saying that Europe could do little in that field without significant action from Member States (MS). He noted that “saying that Europe alone has responsibility is simply wrong” and underlined the fact that the EU “should not act as if it alone could solve all problems”.

Mr Juncker said that often talks about the future of the EU were limited to more or less Europe, but said that that question alone was misleading. He then said that the Paper depicted five scenarios for the EU 27, not all of which met the “spontaneous agreement of the Commission”, but which were all under discussion.

He then moved on to the analysis of the first scenario, “Carrying on”. He underlined that, since it took office, the Commission had already in part succeeded in restoring citizens’ confidence in the EU. He stated that the EU was now concentrating on important things, “the big things that are important for the people”.

He talked about “permanent Brussels-bashing that makes no sense, because simply there is no basis for it” and called for an end to such practices. He agreed, however, that things could be done differently, focusing on important things, including the capital markets union and the defence union. He then asked MEPs whether this would be sufficient.

He then said that the EU could focus on the internal market and limit itself to that. This, he said, would be the second scenario, “Nothing but the single market”. He said that if more and more MS want to limit the Commission to being the administrator of the internal market, then that could be an option. However, he underlined that the internal market and the euro were not aims in themselves, but that “they’re for the people”.

As to the third scenario, “Those who want to do more do more”, Mr Juncker asked MEPs whether all MS had to move forward at the same pace. “It should be possible for those who wish to make progress in a certain area to move forward”, while the others should have the possibility to join later. He then argued that this approach could bring great progress for countries who “wish to exchange information on combating terrorism […] or pool defence capacities”, but said that it would also involve multiple concentric circles and that “Europe would be harder to understand”.

He then said that there was a fourth possibility, “Doing less more efficiently”. This would be possible by having the EU 27 to do more in a certain number of areas. “So, this would mean following the principle “less is more””. He said that areas for increased cooperation would include terrorism and security, diesel gate, borders, and monitoring suspects.

As for scenario number five, “Doing much more together”, he said that MS could decide to share more power and resources and move “full steam ahead”. He said that Europe could be a forerunner on climate change “whatever the US is doing” and mentioned also cooperation in other sectors, such as defence.

Mr Juncker said that all of these plans were theoretically possible, and the choice was now open. He said that he rejected the idea that the EU could be reduced to a free trade area, but he refused to say which was his favourite option. He underlined the fact that the Commission would not be making “its choice in splendid isolation”, but said that it would also be up to national Parliaments, governments and civil society. He also underlined the fact that “the Commission does not dictate or instruct”, but that it listened before speaking.

Mr Juncker said that a day would come when the Treaties should be adapted in order to answer to a collective wish. He said that such conversation should not only take place in Rome or on the occasion of summits, but in the cities and regions throughout Europe. “It is through you, honourable members, and the MS, that we will have a debate on the future of the EU”, he stated. It would then be up to the EU, he said, to answer all voices.

He said that over the next few months the Commission would add to the debate by issuing a series of proposals on current major challenges. He said that social Europe would be a vital issue for the decades to come and added that the Commission would present its views on the deepening of the economic and monetary Europe, on interacting with globalisation, on defence and on finance.

As for defence, Mr Juncker said that it was clear that MS would have to increase their military budget. He however noted that “stability is not a function of military budget” but explained that it was linked to other things, including climate change. “The EU needs to carry on with its commitments”, he said, “and we need to help those who are lagging behind to catch up”.

He reminded MEPs that in 2019 there would be new elections and said that the institutions should be able to meet that challenge. “The European political parties should be able to provide their voters with lists and will have to make sure that European democracy remains credible”, he added.

Mr Juncker then said he would not stand for a second mandate and said it would be right for citizens to be able to choose their next President. He also reassured MEPs that he was “not tired, nor out of ideas. You will see”.

He then noted that there were 40 wars going on in the world, but that none of them was on European soil. “Seen from other parts of the world, Europe is still something magnificent”, he said, arguing that the EU had created an area of stability and prosperity. He noted that sometimes he felt like others admired it, while Europeans hated it.

Mr Juncker also called for a correct application of the principle of subsidiarity, saying that sometimes he felt that people calling for subsidiarity were forgetting solidarity. “A happy patriotism, peace, solidarity, these are values that should continue to guide us”. The rule of law, he said, should be the rule underlying the EU’s existence.

He also said that the EU should be proud of being built on openness. “Democracy is a European product and we will defend it everywhere with all our strength”, he added. He also said that “Europe continues to be a great ambition”. He stressed that some choices needed to be made, but that the future of the EU 27 was still in our hands. Reactions from MEPs

Esteban González Pons MEP (EPP, Spain) said that the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome would also be the farewell to the UK. He said that the anniversary should be “the time to renew our commitments”. He then asked how the EU would deal with challenges, how it would move forward and whether it should move forward.

Mr González Pons MEP thanked the Commission for proposing five scenarios even if it knew that they might not all be welcomed. He added that, for his group, there could also be a sixth one, merging the other five.

“We may have forgotten where we come from: we come from war, poverty and hunger”, he said, before reminding MEPs that the EU was the best way to achieve peace.

He repeated that the debate on the future of the EU was necessary. He underlined the fact that, by launching this debate, the Institutions were showing that they had realised that Europe was not built by the Council, the Commission or the EP, but by its citizens.

Gianni Pittella MEP (S&D, Italy) said that the White Paper that the Commission had just presented had disappointed the S&D group. He mentioned the challenges facing Europe, including a protectionist American President, Russia and China, and said that they represented the “toughest storm ever”. “You present us with a reflection paper”, he said, and argued that it would have been better to indicate “one political priority, one political option”. He then stressed that the Commission was not a bureaucratic, but a political body.

Mr Pittella said that he could see only one option, the fifth one “because there is much more to do”. He said that tax fraud should be combatted and that the project of a common European army was more important than ever.

He then called for the Commission to take on its responsibilities, saying that it was the “guardian of the European future” and asking it to provide leadership.

Ulrike Trebesius MEP (ECR, Germany) praised Mr Juncker for asking the right questions at the right time.

She said that the EU and the Eurozone were supposed to provide freedom and prosperity, but noted that it had failed in doing this. She then talked about scenario five, saying that it mentioned Silicon Valley and the need for overcoming old ideas. She argued that MS should foster their industrial environment but do so by themselves.

Ms Trebesius MEP said that scenario four was an essential idea. She said that the crisis had shown that policy areas could not be written in stone forever, but that flexibility was needed.

She finally criticised Mr Jucker by saying that, had he been more flexible with the British Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, there would not have been a Brexit. Guy Verhofstadt MEP (ALDE, Belgium) welcomed the contribution by the Commission. He said that it was important to recognise one thing, namely “that what we want today is something different from the Treaty of Rome”. He underlined the fact that the Treaty of Rome was just a customs union, and said that this was no longer enough.

He said that the first three scenarios of the proposal could be forgotten and declared that only scenarios four and five deserved consideration.

He criticised the lack of European capacities and capabilities “that we desperately need”. He then asked why there were no big internet companies in Europe and condemned the fact that there was no single digital market. He said that the EU was “still a loose confederation”.

He also criticised option three, saying that there were already “fifty exceptions in the circus of the EU”. He also asked how it would be possible to convince national leaders to take the leap forward that was needed and called for an interinstitutional reflection, “so that we do not only talk about Brexit here”, but also open an offensive action.

Patrick Le Hyaric MEP (GUE/NGL, France) said that European citizens needed to be heard. He argued that the EU needed “a kind of general estates”. He added that the EU needed to have regard for its citizens’ aspiration to a better life, otherwise it would fail.

He then called for a new scenario, a “bottom up” one, and mentioned the importance of creating jobs for young people. “Cooperation and austerity must be put on the side, we got to have a new distribution of wealth”, he added, before calling for a new industry policy for the EU and a new digital world. He also advocated for a big plan against tax fraud and tax evasion. He then called for increased funding for social and environmental progress.

Philippe Lamberts MEP (Greens/EFA, Belgium) underlined the fact that citizens felt mistrust towards the EU and insisted that more transparency was needed.

He then moved on to the five scenarios and said that they were always suggesting moving in the same direction, “as if a change was unthinkable”. He argued that “in the face of increasing inequality in the single currency, you do not have the courage to identify the root cause”, which, in his opinion, was the need for a fiscal Union. He stressed the fact that it would be necessary to link the EU with its original ambitions and said that fiscal convergence was needed.

Gerard Batten MEP (EFDD, UK), said that the White Paper successfully recognised the problems that the EU was facing, but not the cause of these problems, which was, in his opinion, the EU itself.

He said that the single currency was the “single greatest reason for youth unemployment”. He noted that the paper did not mention the British referendum, arguing that understanding it would lead to better answers. Vicky Maeijer MEP (ENF, Netherlands) said that Europe was collapsing. She said that the Dutch were going to feel they needed to go away “from this suffocating Europe”.

Diane James MEP (NI, UK) said that the White Paper was a real delusion because of its denial of what had happened over the last few years. She said that it did not give EU citizens the opportunity of voicing their disappointment and asked Mr Juncker to “please go back to the blueprint and come back with something new”.

Paulo Rangel MEP (EPP, Portugal) said that the presentation of the White Paper was a sign that the Commission thought that the future of Europe was to be a democratic process. He also disagreed with the socialist group and welcomed the presentation of five possible scenarios, on which national stakeholders could express their views. He added that the EPP group was totally committed to the idea of a social market economy, innovation, development and growth, and to moving forward in defence and security reforms.

Maria João Rodrigues MEP (S&D, Portugal) said that the problem was the fact that a choice was being proposed. She explained that the central question was how to deliver better European solutions. She argued that a majority for such an initiative existed.

Anders Primdahl Vistisen MEP (ECR, Denmark) said that it was essential for the Commission to ask MS whether they should go back to the centrality of the Single Market. He then said that he hoped that the Institutions would choose a reasonable way forward.

Josep-Maria Terricabras MEP (Greens/EFA, Spain) called for the EU to recognize the importance of small and medium size nations.

Rolandas Paksas MEP (EFDD, Lithuania) said that his group did not want a two-speed Europe or a federal one, but a “Europe of equality”. He said that it was important to think of a Europe without fears, where the problems of the big States were not solved to the detriment of the small ones. He then called for a “genuine union of States”.

Harald Vilimsky MEP (ENF, Austria) said he felt that the EU was keeping its eyes closed and is ears shut. He said that it was important to reconsider the EU and reminded MEPs that there were proposals on the table to halve the size of the Commission.

Konstantinos Papadakis MEP (NI, Greece) said that none of the scenarios was bottom up and that this was the problem of the White Paper.

Herbert Reul MEP (EPP, Germany) underlined the fact that approval towards the EU had gone down and argued that this was because people only talked about what was going wrong. He said that the questions of what the EU could and could not do could not be dodged anymore.

Kathleen Van Brempt MEP (S&D, Belgium) said that the note was a good basis to start the discussion. She added, however, that the challenges that the EU were facing were migration and security, the social pillar and climate change. She said that only one scenario could help the EU work together and answer such challenges.

Pascal Durand MEP (Greens/EFA, France) said that this debate represented the last chance for the EU. He asked how it was possible to go through different scenarios until there was no agreement on a diagnosis.

Marco Valli MEP (EFDD, Italy) said that, in his opinion, the single market and the EU were not at the service of EU citizens and that, for this reason, citizens were losing confidence in the EU. He then called for citizens to be involved in the process and for referenda to be called.

Janusz Lewandowski MEP (EPP, Poland) said that there were national events taking place, such as national elections in France, the Netherlands and Germany. He said that this would have a greater influence than any white papers.

Pervenche Berès MEP (S&D, France) said that the only feasible scenario was that by which the EU reached out to citizens.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo MEP (EFDD, Italy) called for a “black paper of the recent past” and mentioned a series of challenges the EU was facing. He said that the Commission was not self-critical enough and that there was need for a social Europe.

Franck Proust MEP (EPP, France) said that it was “absolutely necessary to act”. He said that it was important to understand the issues raised by Brexit. He then said that the only question guiding the process should be which kind of Europe the Institutions wanted.

Elena Valenciano MEP (S&D, Spain) agreed with Mr Juncker on the lack of a European collective will and on the fact that the EU was not to be taken for granted. She however blamed the President of the Commission for not sharing the way forward.

Peter Lundgren MEP (EFDD, Sweden) said that the debate was about the “same, old, wrong solutions” and blamed the Commission for failing to listen to European citizens.

Luděk Niedermayer MEP (EPP, Czech Republic) agreed with Mr Juncker on the fact that the EU was at a crossroads, even though he argued that this was not because of Brexit, but for the inability of national governments to find common answers. He praised the White Paper by saying that it forced EU peoples to reflect on what was happening.

Jeppe Kofod MEP (S&D, Denmark) called for a solidarity package and for the race to the bottom to stop. He brought the example of taxation and said that money could be used to protect the welfare state in the MS. He called for a solidarity pack to protect workers.

Gunnar Hökmark MEP (EPP, Sweden) said that visions were stronger than institutions. He said that the EU was underestimating its achievements in matter of unification and single market and argued that if the right decisions were made, the EU could be really competitive. Tanja Fajon MEP (S&D, Slovenia) said that she felt like Mr Juncker was already putting the decision in the hands of the capitals. She called for a unite Union, peaceful and safe. She added that the biggest priority for the S&D was the reform of the Asylum system and blamed the Commission for not considering it as a priority.

Viviane Reding MEP (EPP, Luxembourg) agreed with Mr Juncker on the need for action. She called for real defence capacity and a single voice in foreign affairs. She also called for the direct election of the President of the Commission and for decisions to be made in the Council by simple majority.

Roberto Gualtieri MEP (S&D, Italy) said that all scenarios included elements of truth. He added that only by doing more the EU would be able to answer to the challenges that were lying ahead, including the reduction of unemployment. He called for a tax system to absorb shocks and said that this should be the first step for discussions.

Victor Boştinaru MEP (S&D, Romania) said that the Commission’s primary responsibility was to take the lead instead of acting like a think tank. He said that it was a very unfortunate time to table the White Paper and that it would cause further frustration in certain MS that were ready to cooperate more.

Nicola Caputo MEP (S&D, Italy) said that the White Paper may help making sure that the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome would be an opportunity to relaunch the EU. He added that some thinking on the social pillar and security policy was needed.

Notis Marias MEP (ECR, Greece) noted that EU citizens had not been asked what they wanted. He argued that, if asked, they would call for the end of austerity, the cancellation of debt, respect for democracy and national sovereignty.

Miguel Viegas MEP (GUE/NGL, Portugal) said the White Paper was based on false premises and argued that people across Europe were distancing themselves from the project of European integration.

Reactions from the Commission

The President of the European Commission, Mr Juncker, conceded that, in the past, his method had been criticised for not having discussed with the broader public. He explained that this was the reason why the Commission had put forward five different scenarios. While he preferred one over the others, he thought that all five of them there needed for a real debate to take place.

Key documents

• European Commission White Paper on the future of Europe [see here]

Live reporting by Cecilia Lazzaroni for DeHavilland EU.