sign in sign up
<<
Home , Continental union

63((&+

'U)UDQ]),6&+/(5

Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries

(8523(¶6 -2851(< )URP D &RPPXQLW\ $YDQWJDUGH WR D &RQWLQHQWDO8QLRQ

University of Oslo - Schuman Lecture

2VOR0D\ Dear Mr N.N. Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you very much for your kind introduction and for giving me the opportunity to be here and speak to you today. Norway is an extraordinary country with its 2515km long land frontier and a coastline that stretches 22,000km. Due to this fact, you, the Norwegian people, have become one of the most open-minded and sea-oriented people of the world. Your ancestors have settled Iceland, ruled over French principalities, founded European cities like Dublin, and started the transatlantic dialogue as early as 1000 years ago, when Leif Eriksson discovered America. And yet, despite Norway’s long history of free movement of goods and people, a slight majority of Norwegians has rejected participation in ’s integration into a community of states and peoples, preferring to go its way alone. Be it as it may, I have the feeling that there are lingering misperceptions about the goals of the EU and about the way it works. Nordic media, just like in the rest of Europe, concentrate all too often on the shortcomings on the European scene and headlines about European affairs claim that ‘the EU wants to control Norwegian oil’. Editors tend to say that only bad news are worth printing. Let me therefore take the opportunity to convey to you my own view as to what the EU really is all about. − I will point out the reasons that led Robert Schuman to his famous declaration that he made 51 years ago. − Secondly, I will give a short overview of the success story that is. − Moreover, I will take a look at the bilateral relations between Norway and the EU, particularly in the fields of agriculture and fisheries. − This will lead me to the question how small states can articulate their interests within the . − And finally, I will draw my conclusions what this could mean for your country. Ladies and Gentlemen, From time to time, individuals or an avant-garde have been able to profoundly change the course of history. This notably happened 50 years ago today. After the end of the Second World War, Europe lay in ruins, food dependent, defenceless and discouraged. The continent was divided by what Churchill called an iron curtain from Stettin to Triest. Europe was turned into a tool of the Cold War. This was the result of autocracy, nationalism, intolerance, and sheer stupidity. A new deal was necessary if Europe was to be brought back on its best and vaccinated against further civil wars and pogroms on the continent. Europe had to be transformed from a theatre of war into an area of and solidarity, from a kindergarten of ill feelings into a family of understanding, from an area of discrimination into a school of tolerance. However, this was easier said than done. There had been many an attempt to unite Europe, from Charlemagne to Frederic 1st, from the peaceful visions of Coudenhove, Briand and Stresemann to Napoleon’s centralistic and Hitler’s autocratic plans. Similarly, the “concert of nations”, orchestrated by Metternich, had to fail, because it was based on the assumption that Europe could be managed by the big nations, leaving the smaller ones on the sidelines; not as makers, but as takers of history.

2 All these models of co-operation had failed. Therefore, there was a need to find a new strategy to peacefully organise our continent, by giving a role to all its nations, whatever their size, and give back to Europe a political and economic role in the world. This is where the French foreign minister of the time, Robert Schuman comes in: he adopted and promoted Jean Monnet’s revolutionary plan to create a supranational institution through which the European countries would manage their coal and steel industry together. This idea was ground-breaking: Schuman was realistic enough to know that a political unification of Europe would not work from one day to another; on the other hand, he was visionary enough to know that the unification of the key industry would make wars impossible and lay the ground for an even deeper union. In his declaration on the 9th of May 1950, Schuman was very clear about the objectives of his plan. He said “By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, (…), this proposal will lead to the realisation of the first concrete foundation of a European indispensable to the preservation of peace.” One can see clearly that the pooling of industry was not a goal in itself. The objective was to guarantee peace through co-operation, and the method was to integrate Europe step by step, according to the so-called “Jean Monnet-method”. The first step was a community avant-garde, based on the co-operation in the field of Coal and Steel between the Benelux countries, the German-French axis and Italy. But other steps should follow, and so they did. The history of European integration has been a real success-story. It is true, there were times of slowdown, notably during the Sixties, early Seventies and early Eighties. And yet, the direction was clear: it led, as intended, to an ever closer Union of the peoples of Europe. For two decades now, the speed of integration has been increasing: while the Treaty, the constitution of the European Union, was left unchanged for thirty years, five changes of the Treaty took place in the past 15 years. And with each Treaty Reform, Europe became more unified and democratic. As a result, Europe is more than just an Economic avant-garde community. Let me name some of the milestones over the last twenty years: − Since 1979, we have a directly elected . − Since 1993, we have a within the EU, with free movement of people, goods, capital and services. − Since 1st of January 1999, we have a common currency in twelve member states. In only eight months from now, this currency that we have already now will become touchable in form of coins and banknotes. − A Common European Security and Defence Policy is in the making. All these achievements have made the European Union obviously more attractive: While the avant-garde that has laid the foundations in 1951 consisted of only six states, four enlargements have increased EU membership to fifteen. And 13 more states knocking at our door are scheduled to join in the next few years. It is interesting to see what the European citizens think about the different candidate countries. In the latest opinion survey, which the European Union carries out twice a year, citizens of all member states were asked which countries they would like to see as new members. It was possible to name also countries that have not applied for membership, and guess who was the most welcome? Norway, with 70% approval. But as you know, the EU does not intrude itself, it is simply ready to accept every country willing and able to comply with its rules and values. Norway is clearly able but a majority of Norwegians have said ‘No’ twice.

3 However, Norway did participate in the creation of the European Economic Area in 1992. Due to this treaty, Norway can participate in most sectors of the internal market, except agriculture and fisheries. It therefore enjoys the same conditions of competition as the EU member states. However, it cannot participate in the decision-making when these conditions are decided. It may well take part in the preparatory work for new legislation that affects the EEA, but it does not have a voting right. At the same time, I wish to underline that the bilateral co-operation between Norway and the European Union is excellent. Let me give you two examples from my own area of responsibilities: agriculture and fisheries. Both agriculture and fisheries are not included in the EEA agreement. This means that we have to deal with these issues on a bilateral basis. As for the negotiations on agriculture in the WTO, I am glad to say that Norway and the EU are looking eye-to-eye. − We both agree that agriculture is special, because farmers in Europe do much more than just producing food. Farmers also provide other services that our society wants, such as the maintenance of landscapes or the protection of our environment. The free market can hardly provide these services, therefore the public sector has to guarantee that farmers are rewarded for their services. − Moreover, both Norway and the EU are willing to shift our support from production subsidies to the support for the multifunctional role of agriculture. − And finally, we both belong to the group of the ‘friends of multifunctionality’ which was founded in order to defend the multifunctional role of agriculture in the WTO. Last year, your has organised a conference on multifunctionality in Ullensvang. The aim of this conference was to discuss the multifunctional role of agriculture together with representatives from developing countries, and we found out many points which we have in common. I am confident that together we will be able to defend our common concerns within the WTO. As to fisheries, media seem only to report bad news, although the good news predominate. The good news is that our overall fisheries relationship is consistently good. There is only a very small number of bilateral problems, such as the question of fishing restrictions around Svalbard and the question of blue whiting catches. But these problems are clearly outweighed by the good co-operation in general. We are working together closely in international fisheries organisations such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Council. And just three weeks ago we added another international agreement, when both Norway and the EU joined other states and founded the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. It is clear to me that Norway and the EU share common goals. Our main concern is that our fisheries policies have not been able to stabilise the abundance of fish in our waters and we both want to make our policies more sustainable. This is not only a question of environment, but of a whole industry in coastal . Cod is a good example: Norway and the European Union are currently working on a long term recovery plan for cod in the North sea. On the east coast of Canada, cod has disappeared due to overfishing and the lack of a sustainable fisheries policy ten years ago. We must not repeat the same mistake and secure a sustainable fishing on cod in the North Sea in order to avoid under all circumstances a total collapse of the cod stocks.

4 But our efforts are not restricted to cod. Within the European Union, we are working on a substantial reform of the in order to make it more sustainable. The European Commission has presented a Green Paper that will be the subject of discussion of all stakeholders in the EU this year. The four key elements of the Green Paper are: − Improving conservation and the protection of marine ecosystems − stakeholders of the fisheries sector should be more involved in decision-making − securing an economically viable and self-sufficient fisheries sector and − promoting sustainable fisheries beyond Community waters. Let me stress that I clearly regret that our review has to be carried out by the European Union without Norway, although we share the same goals and the same fishing grounds. While we can and will continue to co-operate on a bilateral basis, Norway would play now a key role in reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, if it was a member of the Union. It would certainly make more sense to create a common approach to common problems. Ladies and Gentlemen, What is true for fisheries applies for most main political issues of today. They are not restricted to single countries any more. When we look at defence policy, Norway drew its lessons from World War II and joined NATO as a founding member in 1949. And take the questions of biotechnology, of environment protection, of international crime, of employment, of trade, to name but a few. All these issues do not stop at the border, but are international by nature. What would be more logical than tackling these issues together, in close co-operation? The contention that small countries have little say in a large body like the EU is lollipop. My country, Austria, joined because it felt a loss of influence as long as it stayed out. The European Union is not an institution where the bigger one can impose its will on the small one. The complex institutional setting of the European Union is such that it favours small members. Everyone has a say, and no one can be forced to give up a national interest. Let us take the example of Finland with its 5.2 million inhabitants, and let us see how it can influence the decision-making after the Treaty of Nice. − As for the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, it is true that the Treaty of Nice has given more importance to the ‘demographic factor’. Nevertheless, Finland is still well represented with seven votes. Although Finland has only about 7% of the population of Germany, it has 25% of the German voting power in the Council. − Secondly, a new rule was introduced, according to which each decision of the Council has to be approved by the majority of the member states. This means that the big member states cannot decide anything alone. − Thirdly, each will continue to be represented by one Commissioner. Even more, big member states have to give up one of their Commissioners from 2005 on. − Finally, each member state has one vote in the institution that decides on the general political direction of the EU, the European Council. All decisions have to be made by unanimity, therefore Luxembourg has the same influence in the European Council as the United Kingdom.

5 The Treaty of Nice did not lead to a loss of influence for the small member states. This would have been impossible, since all the changes of the Treaty have to be decided unanimously. is a strange animal. A country deciding to join or stay out from a community of nations has the sovereign right to do so. But those two options have a different impact on sovereignty subsequently. Joining means enhancing sovereignty by taking part in the collective sovereignty of the more influential community. Staying out means to be faced with the consequences of decisions taken by others. A country which eventually joins the Union suffers a loss of sovereignty contrary to early members, because it has to take the “acquis” decided by them beforehand. From the moment of accession, however, it can influence any new decision by the Union. Let me add another thought to this. Referenda are good instruments to assess public opinion, but they are also arenas of political manipulation by supporters of a ‘Yes’ and a ‘No’ vote alike. I am convinced that in 1950, a referendum in Germany or on the European Coal and Steel Community would have failed for different reasons. And yet a majority in most member states today thinks positively about the Union. Ladies and Gentlemen, As I have pointed out, Europe has moved closer together in the past five decades. However, you must not mistake integration with centralisation. While the member states moved some responsibilities to the community level, we have introduced the principle of . This means that the Union should only deal with issues where it has an added value, such as industry and environmental protection. Other issues should stay on the member state level or be moved to the regions. I think that this is the right way to go, and we are determined to continue this strategy in the upcoming conferences on the future development of the EU. Of course, the EU is by no means a paradise – family affairs are difficult matters. Conversely, there are also good prospects outside the EU. Nobody can tell the Norwegians how they should deal with global challenges or in which way they should co-operate with their neighbours. However, I think that the American sociologist David Bell was right when he stated “today the nation state is to small for the big problems and to big for the small ones.” As for security, Norway thinks the same way by joining NATO in 1949. It thinks the same way regarding trade by joining the European Economic Area in 1992. Moreover it signed the Schengen agreement in 1996. Norway and the rest of Europe are moving in the same directions. Norway abides by the same rules as Europe when it comes to trade. I think it would be only logical if it had a greater say when it comes to the making of these rules. 51 years ago today, Robert Schuman has said that the creation of the Steel and Coal Community “may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions”. Schuman was right: his project has developed to the most successful example of co-operation in European history. Norway would be welcome to make its contribution to this project, once its citizens wish to do so. Thank you for your attention.

6