Den Haag, 24 juni 2005
Wouter Bos spreekt Europese sociaal-democratische leiders toe over toekomst van Europese Unie
Op vrijdag 24 juni tussen 11:30 en 12:45 houdt Wouter Bos bijgaande speech in Wenen bij de raad van de PES ( Partij van Europese Sociaal-democraten) over de toekomst van de Europese Unie en de duiding van het Nederlandse Nee bij het referendum over de Europese Grondwet. De raad van de PES vindt plaats in de: Messe Vienna Congress Centre, Messeplatz, 1021 Wenen, Oostenrijk.
Bos stelt in zijn speech dat angst en onzekerheid over de toekomst voor veel mensen uit de sociaal-democratische achterban medebepalend is voor hun sceptische houding tegen verdergaande Europese samenwerking.
Hij wijst erop dat sociaal-democraten het benoemen van de misstanden van het functioneren van de EU niet aan anderen mogen overlaten: It should be those who love Europe most, who should be the first to take action when Europe fails. Daarbij noemt Bos o.a. het landbouwbeleid, de structuurfondsen, en de soms onnodige bemoeienis van Europa.
Bos meent dat helderheid over de richting, snelheid en grootte van Europa noodzakelijk is om het vertrouwen van mensen terug te winnen. De PvdA heeft daartoe keuzes gemaakt: de PvdA is het federalisme ver voorbij en ziet Europa als een samenwerkingsverband van landen, waarin ruimte is voor nieuwe landen die aan de Kopenhagencriteria voldoen. Bos constateert dat het tempo waarin Europa zowel aan verbreding als aan verdieping heeft gedaan de afgelopen jaren te hoog is geweest. Voor hem is een Europa van verschillende snelheden op verschillende onderwerpen daarom denkbaar.
Naast Wouter Bos nemen de volgende personen namens de PvdA deel aan de raad van de PES: Ruud Koole (voorzitter), Marije Laffeber (internationaal secretaris), Frans Timmermans (Tweede- Kamerlid), Emine Bozkurt (Europarlementariër) en Egbert de Vries (voorzitter gekozen PvdA-PES delegatie).
Deelnemers uit andere lidstaten zijn o.a.:
José Socrates en Ferenc Gyurcsany, de presidenten van Portugal en Hongarije,
John Prescott ( Vice-minister-president van het VK),
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (voorzitter van de PES),
Josep Borrell, (voorzitter van het Europees Palement),
Gunther Verheugen ( Eurocommissaris),
Matin Schultz (fractievoorzitter van de PES in het EP),
Partijleiders:Elio Di Rupo (België), Helle Thorning-Schmidt (Denemarken), Francois Hollande (Frankrijk), George Papandreou (Griekenland), Piero Fassino (Italië) en vele anderen.
Journalisten die bij de raad aanwezig willen zijn dienen zich van te voren aan te melden. Stuur daarvoor een email aan: <:mailto:press-registration>press-registration@spoe.at of bel: +43 1 534 27 275.
Voor meer informatie over deze bijeenkomst:
Geke van Velzen +31-6-46220391.
Voorlichting
Plein 2
Postbus 20018, 2500 EA Den Haag
Tel 070 - 318 3025/Fax 070 - 318 2800
Bijlage:
SPEECH AT PES COUNCIL MEETING
VIENNA 24 JUNE 2005
WOUTER BOS
Dear Friends,
A year and a half ago, I addressed the PES European Parliamentarians in Brussels. I remember that occasion very well because people in protest walked out of the room and booed at me. Because I told them that I was, and still am, convinced that the slumbering crisis of confidence in the European integration process was not simply founded on cheap Euro-sceptic sentiments fuelled by populist politicians. Instead, I tried to make the point that we are dealing with insecurity people feel about their lives, their environment, their values and their future on the one hand and a lack of perspective on the other; an eroding faith also, in national and European politicians and an, often valid, dissatisfaction with the performance of the European Union.
Well, my friends, clearly, one and a half years ago we were divided on how to assess the threats of a possible European crisis of representation. Today, the crisis has arrived through a Dutch NEE, a French NON and an unsuccessful summit on the budget.
Action is now required at three levels.
First, we have to restore trust in politics, in the economy, in the future.
Then, we have win back trust in the Europe we know today.
And finally, only after we have made progress on these first two tasks, we may stand a chance in putting new credible proposals forward about the future Europe; but I repeat: new proposals, not a rejected Constitutional Treaty.
But let me begin at the beginning and say a few things about why people in the Netherlands voted against the European Constitutional Treaty. It may be helpful for you to know that the Dutch Labour Party campaigned in favour of the Treaty but also in my own party, the majority of voters voted against the Treaty.
Early election research shows that the reasons of the dissenting vote have to do with the Dutch payments to the EU, the perceived lack of influence and even a further loss of influence in the EU, a loss of identity and the feeling Europe had been and is expanding too rapidly, and -finally- with the complexity of the Treaty.
These motives are probably also indicators of something which hasn't got so much to do with the Treaty or with Europe as such but of something much more fundamental. It certainly reminds me of the populist revolt we encountered in the Netherlands in 2002: a great uncertainty people feel about their future; a sense of not having control over their own lives and prospects; a vulnerable livelihood in which anything that comes in from the outside, whether it is migration or 'Brussels', is seen as a threat rather than an opportunity.
This interpretation is supported by research which shows that there seems to be a division between high income/high education on the yes side, and low income/low education on the no side. Many of the latter belong to our traditional electorate. They fear that they will belong to the group of "Modernisierungsverlierer", the ones who lose out in various processes of modernization like Europeanisation, migration and globalisation.
I am convinced this is not an exclusive Dutch problem. On the contrary. It is this fault line that runs right trough the electorate of especially socialist and social democrat parties all over Europe and which makes the task ahead of us so daunting and existential.
It implies that our first task ahead is to restore trust in politics and to work on the fundamental mission of social democratic politics: to turn people into masters of their own destiny; to give them security, grip and something to go by in a world which is getting more and more uncertain, volatile and unpredictable.
It is only if we lay that foundation, that people may become receptive towards a possible next step forward in European cooperation, if any. For us, it means we have to go back to social democratic core business: jobs, education, jobs, social security, jobs, jobs and jobs. I believe we actually need Europe in order to be successful for that. But not the Europe that was organised and financed in 20th century terms but a Europe which is organised and financed fit for the 21st century.
This is not going to be easy. It will be tempting to get lured into a national reflex, putting all our energy into a rigid debate on subsidiarity, under the banner "I want my competences back".
But: "An honest tale speeds best, being plainly told" (King Richard III). I am prepared to tell that honest tale about an economy which globalises, whether we like it or not; about competition with workers from countries with a cheaper labour force, whether we like it or not; about an ageing work force and the need, whether we like it or not, to adjust the welfare state in order to maintain affordability and solidarity; about migration from rich to poor countries as a global and permanent phenomenon, whether we like it or not. A tale which acknowledges the fact that Europe will play an important role in the solution of many of these contemporary problems. A tale that might not contain all the desired answers towards the fears of a great part of our electorate, but, if "plainly told" and if accompanied by policies that invest in people's ability to handle these changing circumstances, it will be a tale that works.
This is our first task: rebuilding trust in politics, in the economy and in the future.
Our second task is to win back trust in Europe as it is. People didn't only vote against the Constitutional Treaty because of their uncertainties and insecurities alone, but also because they were unhappy with the way Europe works right now. And again here the message is: before starting a next chapter in European cooperation we have to prove to people that Europe as it is today can actually perform.
The only way to achieve this objective is that we, social democrats, first: expose the flaws of the EU and second: deal with them. Because it should be those who love Europe most, who should be the first to take action when Europe fails.
Let me give you a few examples of why people's trust in the Union as it performs now, is low in the Netherlands.
First the cumulative impact of the Common Agricultural Policies, the Structural Funds and the uneven distribution of member states' net contributions to the Union. It is becoming harder and harder to explain to Dutch citizens why they should consent to a European adventure to which they have to make substantially greater financial contributions than citizens from equally rich or even richer countries. Especially when policy priorities are unclear or flawed. How can social democrats defend a system that actually transfers money from rich to rich and, worse even, from poor to rich countries? How can social democrats defend a system that shuts out developing countries from world trade opportunities? These are easy targets for Euro sceptics and I have no defence.
A second example of something that in the Netherlands has fuelled distrust in Europe, is the way some member states have dealt with the Growth and Stability Pact. Can you imagine what it does to the trust people have in Europe if some governments ask hard sacrifices from their people in order to meet the criteria of the Pact while others consistently seem to get away with not sticking to the rules? My point here is not that the Pact is great 'cause it wasn't. But my point is that if we have agreed to certain rules in Europe, we should stick to them. And if we don't, it provides another easy target for the Eurosceptics. And again I have no defence.
A third and final example of why public trust in the European Union is low at present, has to do with the seemingly autonomously increasing involvement of the European Union with matters that, in the minds of our citizens, could easily be left to their own governments and parliaments. Now, I personally believed, the Constitutional Treaty was actually an instrument that could address this fear, in the sense that it provided nation states with instruments to stop the Union from involving itself in matters it shouldn't get involved in. But these instruments, the yellow card, the principle of subsidiarity, it just wasn't convincing enough in view of people's worries and experiences.
So these are the first two tasks ahead of us. Restoring trust in politics, bringing back hope, perspective and grip into people's lives. And winning back trust in Europe as it is, by a fair distribution of costs and benefits, by being prudent with tax payers' money, by sticking to the rules and by careful reconsideration of the matters Europe should and shouldn't get involved in.
Only if we manage to regain trust on these two crucial issues, only then we can start with our third task ahead: developing a new proposal on the future of Europe.
In the Netherlands the Constitutional Treaty was seen by many as a proposal that increased rather than decreased people's sense of uncertainty about the world they live in. We will only be successful in taking away that uncertainty by being very clear about what it is that we ask people to consent to; what the nature, the speed and the direction of further European cooperation is going to be.
Addressing that uncertainty requires us to give clear answers on some hard questions. Like where we stand on federalism. The Dutch labour party has taken a stand and made choices. Europe should remain a cooperation of nation states, who pool sovereignty of a limited but essential number of subjects, based on common values and principles of international law and equipped with instruments that will allow us to effectively tackle our common problems.
Another key question people want to have an answer to before they consent to a next step in European cooperation is how large our Europe is going to become. We believe enlargement remains a priority challenge in a post-cold-War and a post-9/11-world. We will have to look closely at the speed and the conditions, we will have to see how we involve people in further decisions on expansion, through referenda or otherwise, but the conclusion remains the same: the Union should remain open to European states willing to stick to the rules. For us that is a matter of solidarity, enlightened self interest and sensible economics.
The problem is of course that we have seen, and certainly so in the Netherlands, that people are uncomfortable with the idea of a Europe which both becomes larger and more integrated at the same time. I understand that. I think there is a real danger that if we continue to strive for further expansion and at the same time try to get all our ideals on integration implemented for all member-states at the same time, we run the risk of a Europe which mainly negotiates with itself rather than performs for its citizens. And I also think that in times of growing uncertainty, and in the absence of a clear European identity, people want to hold on to their national identity as something that provides at least some grip in a world where so many other structures and values are constantly shifting.
A new proposal on the future of Europe should therefore possibly not just address the need to have more Europe in some areas, but also less Europe in others. It should be selective and flexible, which means that we should acknowledge that on some issues, all members may want to join, on others that may neither be necessary nor desirable. Not only because in moving fast forward in both expansion and integration we seem to have outpaced our constituents, but also because we will have to acknowledge that in a more and more heterogeneous Union it will be tougher to set up broad cooperation on a diversity of subjects.
These are the three conclusions we draw from the NEE in the Dutch referendum. A need to restore trust in politics, the economy and the future. A need to restore trust in the Europe we know today. And finally a need to restore trust in the future of Europe by providing clear answers on what it is we are heading for.
These conclusions are not fundamentally altered now that we have an unsuccessful summit on top of the French and Dutch NO's.
On the contrary. It may have looked like a fight on finances but more than that it was about failing political leadership and the future of Europe.
I think my prime minister was right in wanting an improvement on the Dutch net payment position. I think he was wrong in wanting all or nothing. Because what he got was nothing; more precisely, what he got was the continuation of a Europe where the net payments are not fairly distributed and where the budget is financed in terms that were appropriate in the past but are not appropriate for the future.
I understand the British prime minister in his parliament has now stated that the British rebate is a correction mechanism that should change now that Europe has changed. I applaud Tony Blair for doing so. I hope the French president now will tell his parliament that the financing of the Union and the Common Agricultural Policy will have to change now Europe has changed.
The answer to the present crisis cannot be that we act as if nothing has happened. As if we can solve this problem, the way Europe always solved its problems. Which is, as we often joke in the Netherlands, you give the French what they want and you make the Germans pay for it.
But there is a serious message in this joke: after the expansion with ten new member-states, now that Europe has become very heterogeneous, now that the Constitutional Treaty is rejected and the summit turned out to be a fiasco, I believe we have witnessed both the end of Eurofederalism and the end of the European Union as an -in essence- German-French project.
I realise this is quite a statement. But I am convinced that only in acknowledging and understanding the depth of this crisis and the issues at stake, we will be able to turn this crisis into an opportunity for developing a new vision on Europe.
That new Europe requires a new vision, new answers and new financing.
I realise that even among us, members of that one social democratic family, we will have a hard time coming up with common answers. I gave you come clues of what those answers could possibly be.
And I did that because I believe that we, more than anybody else, can do the job and should do the job.
We could leave the redesigning of Europe to those who never believed in a Europe which is about more than a common market.
We could leave the redesigning of Europe to those who are on a mission to marginalise politics and who will in fact increase people's uncertainties in this volatile world.
We could leave the redesigning of Europe to those who believe you can put a fence around the nation state and continue to live our lives as if nothing ever changes.
Let's not leave it to them, let's do it ourselves.
Yes, it requires hard choices but we have shown we know how to combine strong economies with just social policies.
We have shown that investing in people isn't just good for them but for the whole of society.
We have shown that cooperation between countries and even transferring competences to Brussels, can actually make the nation state stronger rather than weaker.
Europe in the 21st century cannot and will not be run as it was in the 20th century. Let's turn this crisis into an opportunity to make things better.
Let's be leading in finding solutions.
Let's be convincing in leading our citizens.
Let's be progressive and daring in making steps forward.
Thank you.
Partij van de Arbeid