In an interview, Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski tells us why the EU works, despite its size
In January, in an interview with our newspapers Angela Merkel said that the European Union reminds her of an orchestra which has been playing some rather modern music as of late. What are your impressions?
Radosław Sikorski: The European orchestra might not be hitting all the right notes each and every time, but I prefer this tune to a brawl. When I think of the EU, I think of peace and stability. The Nobel committee reminded us of the foundations and greatest benefits stemming from the EU. Today we are negotiating financial terms, but we must remember that without the EU we would not have achieved Franco-German reconciliation. The EU also helped bring about final Polish-German reconciliation.
There is another EU analogy making the rounds in Europe – that of a barely moving car with rickety parts that may fall off at any moment.
The EU lacked discipline. We reached the limits of the soft supervision method with regard to adopted solutions. The stability and growth Pact [which imposes budget discipline on eurozone countries] provided for penalties on those who violated it. But nobody actually implemented the clauses, which stipulated fine payments upon infringements. That is why we adopted the "six-pack" [a set of directives and regulations aimed at strengthening eurozone financial supervision, adopted during last year's Polish EU presidency] and are adopting the fiscal treaty, because we notice the problems this lack of integrity leads to.
The EU must be more efficient in its foreign policy. We announce strategies, but then some countries choose to go solo and reach out to some partners on their own. But wherever we join forces, all of us benefit. Just look at trade – a field where we pooled sovereignty – and competition, and the single market with its strong competences for the European commission.
EU citizens are losing faith in a united Europe. Most Germans think they would be better off without the EU.
The media are partly to blame – they are becoming more and more brash, and less and less willing to explain complex processes. Politicians also bear some of the blame. They act responsibly in Brussels and are able to take truly European decisions keeping in mind the common good, but as soon as they come home, they talk with their constituents purely in terms of national interests.
Why are politicians from so many countries so keen on throwing around Eurosceptic rhetoric?
Because it's catchy, just like national stereotypes. If we don't explain to people the benefits stemming from European policies, they will continue to think in the category of their own back yard. Speaking last year at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, I called for the creation of pan-European programmes to build political awareness.
We must broaden the meaning of the term "solidarity". Westerners see it only as handing out money to the poor. I prefer to say that everyone profits from solidarity: the EU as a whole, all of its member states – both rich and poor; the fact that we represent common interests on many issues. We must convince citizens of this great truth.
The Future of Europe Group recently finished its work. It comprised the chiefs of diplomacy of Poland, Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain – all looking for ways to strengthen Europe and prevent future crises. One of the group's suggestions was to give EU institutions more power and more democratic legitimacy. But it doesn't seem as if Europeans want to have a say in EU policymaking. For years, the turnout in Euro-elections has been dire.
The situation is paradoxical. 20 years ago, when the parliament had nothing to say, people went out to vote. Today, when it plays a key role in adopting the budget, people vote less. Interest in the elections would be greater if they were more personalised. If pan-European voting lists were introduced. If an EU president were elected via universal suffrage. And if the parliament had a greater say in the make-up of the European commission.
Maybe the problem is not with democracy and election mechanisms, but with the fact that for many people Brussels is too far.
If you go to Texas, people will also tell you that Washington is far away, that DC doesn't listen to them and that, on the whole, it is just downright bad. You have to live with it.
We were not talking about geographical distance, but about the EU bureaucracy and the many legends linked to it.
The bureaucracy in Brussels numbers 32,000 public servants. For a bureaucracy serving an entire continent, this is not a figure I find shocking. Greece has 760,000 officials on the payroll, Spain has 3 million. In the UK, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs alone employs 82,000 people.
Czech president, Václav Klaus, said that there is no democracy without the 'demos', the people, the nation. There is no such thing as a European nation. There is the Polish nation, the German one, the French and Czech ones...
President Klaus and other Eurosceptics are on point with their diagnosis: there is no European demos as yet. But they are wrong in thinking that the situation will remain static. I recall the words of the Italian politician Massimo D'Azeglio after the Italian unification of 1861: "We have made Italy, now we must make Italians."
Some nation-states were also created as political constructs. And obviously the point is not to uproot anyone from their nationality or impose anything on them. But you have to realise that as Poles, Germans, Spaniards, or Englishmen we also share a joint European interest in many issues. And if this additional level of identification is to be democratic, it must be debated. For the debate to be creative, every citizen of the union should have a basic knowledge of its mechanisms and actions.
There is no European debate, either. All the talking takes place at the national level.
That depends on the field. When it comes to economy and finance, the Financial Times is a European newspaper. We have the Euronews channel – I very much regret that it doesn't have a Polish edition. As regards technical or European issues, we all read the EUObserver website. We have European political parties. They should have increased visibility, hence the Future of Europe Group's suggestion to introduce pan-European lists.
Do you see Europe's future as a second United States?
The Union will remain a sui generis structure. I won't use the term "federalism", because many people associate it with an irreversible hand-over of sovereignty to the EU level – a scenario almost no one wants. I prefer to talk about an irreversible political union, based on conditions which will be subject to negotiations.
The Future Group suggests directly electing the commission president. But countries are unwilling to give up their influence with regard to this post. Until now, the head of the EC was appointed by way of backroom dealings.
This method lacks transparency. If Europeans want real leaders, they need a way of electing them that will make it possible to choose from among truly distinguished figures. If we continue to cherish the UN method, where everyone has to agree, we will end up getting UN-style leaders.
And another one of the Group's proposals: the EC president should be free to appoint his or her cabinet. Member states would lose influence when it comes to selecting commissioners.
Member states would retain the right to nominate their commissioners. But we recommend that the president appoint commissioners nominated by the member states according to their experience and competence. "Junior" and "senior" commissioners should also co-operate in the framework of thematic groups.
You also want the EU council to take decisions by a majority instead of a unanimous vote.
We have already agreed that this will be the case in a range of areas, but we fail to apply this method. Our problem is precisely that many decisions under the Lisbon treaty have not entered into force. Pursuant to the treaty, last year was meant to see the beginning of enhanced defence co-operation – the next pillar of European integration. Somehow nobody is protesting that this didn't happen. Ignoring the treaties leads to problems like the ones currently affecting the euro.
The Future Group focused a lot on the common currency. Poland, meanwhile, is not yet part of the eurozone. And no one knows when it will adopt the euro.
Even at a time of crisis, our government is doing everything possible to join the eurozone. We will ratify the fiscal compact by the end of the year. We are consistently implementing the expenditure rule, which means that we will have fulfilled the economic criteria by the end of this parliamentary term. The next government will be able to rationally assess whether the eurozone has put its house in order, thereby enabling Poland to adopt the euro safely and to the benefit of both sides.
The battle for the EU budget is about to begin. The British have already stated that it must be slashed. What type of solidarity and common interests are we even talking about?
Poland is one of the biggest payers contributing to the British rebate [negotiated by Margaret Thatcher to exclude the United Kingdom from part of the EU contribution; the rebate is covered by the other member states]. But Great Britain says that it will veto the commission's proposals regarding the new budget, even though they have already been cut. A generous budget and cohesion funds used to finance infrastructure projects are the only effective way of stimulating economic growth. It's a win-win situation, because highways and internet connections financed from EU funds are being built by companies from different member states.
What if Britain decides the knives are out over the budget?
Then the European orchestra will start to rap. I recently went to Oxford, where I tried to show the British just how much they are benefiting from the EU. Those £150 a statistical Briton pays towards the EU is a bargain relative to all the benefits. Poland supports the budget proposal put forward by the commission. We are not alone. Most EU countries share our position.
One year ago in Berlin, you said that you fear German inaction more than you fear German domination. But fear of Germany's power and diktats is not abating.
I think it boils down to the fact that Germany doesn't want to hand over its credit card. Many people would accept German power if it were unconditionally followed by money. Of course, there is a limit to the pressure that may be put on countries which delayed their necessary reforms for decades on end. Berlin's insistence on thrift and reform is understandable, but if it goes over the top, it will stifle economic growth, which will in turn make it impossible for these countries to pay off their debts. This is where some very serious mistakes have been made. For example, the initial aid package for Greece demanded deep spending cuts in exchange for high-interest loans. Meanwhile, the loans should have been preferential. Repairing these mistakes will cost Europe dearly.
I failed to find a single word on enlargement in the Future Group report.
European enlargement is taking place as we speak. We are about to welcome Croatia. Serbia has gained candidate status. Chancellor Merkel recently visited Moldova, praising the country's pro-European path. We invite Georgia to bolster its democracy; the recent elections were indeed a positive step. We are talking with the Ukrainians, trying to convince them to create conditions for the ratification of the EU association agreement.
There is no doubt that Poland is in favour of enlargement. Indeed, in its justification in giving out the award to the EU, the Nobel prize committee stated that it was through enlargement that the EU had broadened the area of peace in Europe. The verdict was given by the Norwegians, who are not part of the EU, so there must be some truth to this claim.
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.guardian.co.uk |
