 |
| European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker |
Speaking at the 14th
Norbert Schmelzer lecture in the Hague, Netherlands on March the 3rd
2016, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker noted.
"Dear
Ms Schmelzer, dear Dries, dear Ben and others, dear Sybrand, dear Ruth,
senators and members of the House of Representatives and of the
European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen,
I am glad to
be here with you this afternoon. This is what one is always supposed to
say on these occasions, but most people do not mean it. But this
afternoon it is true because I really am happy to be here to deliver
this Schmelzer lecture. I am especially happy because Ms Schmelzer has
done us the honour of being here. This is the second time that I have
been invited to give this lecture. If I am not mistaken, I am the only
person to deliver it twice. Those who have done it only once must now be
hoping that they too will get an opportunity to deliver it a second
time. On the last occasion I was here, in 2007, Norbert Schmelzer was
still with us. He died one year later. Norbert for me was a role model
—someone you could look up to, someone who offered guidance, someone who
always knew how to give European integration a deeper meaning in that
he saw the European Union and its creation — the integration of a
continent – in direct relation to European, and also Christian, values.
So that is why I am glad to be here today.
When I was
here in 2007, the world was very different to how it is now. We were
full of optimism. It did not take much courage to support Europe, even
though, after saying ‘No’ in 2005, many Dutch people found it hard to
fully back Europe and the European Union. We are living in different
times now. When I became President of the European Commission, it was
already clear to me that we were living in a time of multiple crises.
But I could not have imagined that it would become so serious, even
though I raised the issue of refugee flows and migration in my address
to the European Parliament at my hearing.
2007 was the
year before the outbreak of the economic and financial crisis. Budgets
were being brought under control, debt levels were coming down,
unemployment was high though it had not reached current levels. That
crisis, the financial and economic crisis, kept us on edge for years,
particularly me, because I was unlucky enough to be President of the
Eurogroup at the time.
We have not yet put that crisis
behind us. But we have not been beaten by it because the countries of
Europe, the Member States of the eurozone, found the strength to come
together.
You will remember the issue of Greece. During
the first half of last year we again came under extreme pressure to
either prevent a Greek exit from the euro zone or speed it up. Some
people were for, others against. I never wanted a Greek exit from the
euro zone because slamming doors shut is not the way forward for Europe.
And now we are plunged into other crises. The financial crisis did some
good in that we were able to do two things: one, to remember the values
— you spoke of Gaudium et Spes – that are the truly fundamental values
of the European social market economy. One of the factors that brought
about the crisis was because those primarily responsible disregarded the
cardinal virtues of the social market economy. We know that now.
Second, the crisis made us move forward with Economic and Monetary Union
– something we had to do – so that today banks and the banking sector
and the real economy are better prepared to withstand external shocks
than they were in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Banking Union is making progress,
though not as much as I would like. Banking supervision works.
Everything we have achieved over the years is working well, although
more must and will be done to complete Economic and Monetary Union.
It
became clear to us in the aftermath of the crisis – and as I just said,
the crisis is not yet fully over – that we needed to do more to address
Europe's real issues. There is a virtuous triangle in European politics
– as I explained to the European Parliament – consisting in the
necessary consolidation of public finances. No one should think that
public finances can be left to their own devices. Governments need to
continue bringing down their deficits. Europe's deficit and debt levels
are still too high.
The virtuous triangle is the
consolidation of public finances, growth, and jobs and investment.
Investment was the issue I pushed at the beginning of this Commission's
term of office; if we compare the investment levels of recent years with
those of 2007, we see that investment, whether public or private, is
still 15 % down compared to 2007. And this applies to every country.
Even Europe's biggest economy, Germany, has a level of investment that
is 52 % lower than in 1991. There is therefore an investment gap in
Europe that we are trying to address with the Investment Plan, which
could mobilise €315 billion in public investment. €61 billion have
already been mobilised under the Investment Plan in just three months.
It
is not enough for Europe to talk about budgetary policy, economic
policy, fiscal policy and so on. One must also show people that the
European Union is also responsible, together with the Member States, for
growth and jobs. Many of our fellow citizens hear only negative news
about Europe: cuts, cuts and more cuts - and it was important when the
Commission took office to talk about growth and jobs as well. Because
Europe's biggest problem remains weak, very weak economic growth and
scandalously high unemployment. In the years to come, we will of course
also be judged on how we have dealt with the refugee crisis. But we will
also have to answer questions as to why we have not been able to get
unemployment down. And so this is a major, ongoing issue, alongside
everything else we have to do.
The Commission receives
an unending stream of criticism from many countries, which is
understandable: they need the Commission to be a scapegoat when they are
unable to do what they promised their electorate. This I bear patiently
but ever less meekly. This Commission has achieved a paradigm shift,
something we made clear in the election campaign, including here in the
Netherlands, namely that European policies, and therefore the European
Commission, deal with the really important issues facing Europe: to be
big on big things and small and modest on smaller things
That
is what we are doing. When I say this in elections and to the European
Parliament, I get a lot of applause. But when it comes to the
nitty-gritty, I get a rather different reaction. Because everyone
sitting in the European Parliament, every national minister, everyone
involved in politics has a very precise idea of what Europe ought to be
doing. And if you ask what Europe ought not to do, again everyone has
their own point of view. If it is then carried out, however, what an
outcry there is. Led by Frans Timmermans, the first Vice-President of
the Commission, we have emblazoned ‘better regulation’ on our banner
because we think that Europe cannot go on dealing with everyone and
everything; it gets on people's nerves. We prescribe, we demand, we
sanction, things that no one is interested in.
We have
taken yet another decision – one I knew nothing about because the
decision was taken by the Member States but the Commission will be
blamed anyway – this time to lay down how fast Christmas candles should
burn. With a perfect sense of timing, we published it in the Official
Journal of the European Union in time for the third Sunday of Advent. I
was very surprised and wondered 'Who was responsible for that?'. It is
said it was a Commission decision. But in fact it was the 28 Member
States, acting at the behest of the candle industry. Only the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands abstained; the UK and the Netherlands are
often in the same boat, which is sometimes a good thing, though not
always.
Consequently, we painstakingly examined all the
draft legislation before the European Parliament and the Council of
Ministers and withdrew over 80 drafts so that now only around 400 still
have to be dealt with. We have announced 23 new initiatives. This is
significant in that previous Commissions launched an average of 130
initiatives a year. And not all initiatives ended where they were
supposed to. It is important to show that 'being big on the big things
and small on the smaller things' is not just a slogan but what we
genuinely do it. 'Better regulation' is of course also a very popular
subject in the Netherlands, and we take it seriously in Europe too. I
had and still have the impression that the more we interfere in people's
everyday lives, the greater the already very considerable distance
becomes between European citizens and European policies, and thus also
the European Commission. Big ideas require big plans.
I
am not talking about the Juncker Plan, though it’s a great thing (and
it’s not called the Juncker plan just because I named it so but because
many people thought that nothing would become of it and then it would be
good if it bore the name of someone who could be blamed, so that is why
the Investment Plan is called the Juncker Plan); I am talking about
other things. We are taking European Energy Union very seriously. Energy
is a continental matter, which makes such heavy demands on solidarity
as do other matters. Energy union will come about. The digital internal
market is being vigorously promoted, because, in digital terms, Europe
lags behind other parts of the world and we have to reduce this digital
gap. Banking Union and Capital Markets Union is another matter. Capital
markets union is of key importance and is also being tackled in a very
focused fashion. We have submitted all these plans and I am very glad
that the European Parliament has endorsed all the projects, just as I am
overall very pleased that the Commission and the European Parliament
have found a new way of engaging with one another. It has always
surprised me how it is that the Commission and Parliament always manage
to argue in public over every little thing, even though they are the two
Community institutions that should be working hand-in-hand to fashion
the future of Europe.
I am the first Commission
President to have been elected by the European Parliament, after we came
up with the idea of choosing a leading candidate for the party lists. I
have to believe that I was put into office by the people of Europe. I
know so. Only the people themselves don’t know this; so we need to
ensure that this method of selecting the Commission President – top
candidate in a continent-wide election, Parliament approval – that this
method does not disappear again. Because the European Council, shocked
by the result of the first election, decided in June 2014 that for 2019
the way in which the European Commission President is appointed had to
be reconsidered. And when 28 governments put their thinking caps on, the
virtue of the outcome is not a God-given certainty and therefore every
democrat needs to make sure that things remain as they are. There are
quite a few former ministers here. And though it used not to be the
case, sound common sense now follows what governments are doing, except
that governments are far quicker. Thus sound common sense (which is not
evenly spread across Europe anyway), does not fully succeed in getting
through to the centres of government.
I am therefore
very glad about the effective cooperation which the Parliament and the
Commission have managed to achieve in the first twelve months of the new
Commission, and I am very much of the view that the European Parliament
wrongly comes in for criticism (often in the Netherlands too). People
do not really understand the role of the European Parliament: it is a
European legislator comparable with national parliaments and deserves
the same degree of respect as national parliaments.
I
said, in a moment of autobiographical weakness, that the new Commission
(people only refer to the new Commission although it is already old and
already has its first wrinkles) would be a political Commission because I
had the impression, and still do, that the European project is
increasingly seen as a problem rather than a solution. And that is
precisely because we very often approach the continent's problems in a
bureaucratic and technocratic manner. I have tried to change this by
reinventing the Vice-Presidents of the European Commission and by giving
them specific remits: for example, Frans Timmermans in the field of
'better regulation'.
These Vice-Presidents all come
from small countries just as the Commission President comes from a small
country - a Grand Duchy but a small country nonetheless. This is
important because Commissioners and Vice-Presidents from smaller
countries have different views on what needs to be done in Europe from
the 'know-it-all's who arrive in Brussels from larger countries. And
this really works very well.
I took care to ensure that
fully mature and experienced professional politicians became
Commissioners (not the way it once used to be, when the people sent to
Brussels were those for whom no place could be found at home), but
former Prime Ministers, four in all, and former Foreign and Finance
Ministers so that in the Commission too, there is an overall
understanding for the state of affairs and constraints facing the Member
States. Many of those here today have, for their sins, attended Council
meetings as national ministers. Now they are Commissioners, they
understand better what they can propose and what they had better not
propose because some governments would promptly object. To this extent,
we are a political Commission in terms of our composition but also in
the way we conduct political business in the Commission.
I
said earlier that the Commission often comes in for a lot of criticism –
we all used to be keen critics, though I am not quite so keen now; but
that’s the way things are. What is not acceptable, though, is constantly
seeking to take the Commission, the European Union’s executive arm,
down a peg or two. Brussels does this, Brussels does that – Brussels is
always doing something. And Brussels is always to blame for the dreadful
state of the world. Brussels is to blame for a lot of things. But
Brussels is not just 28 Commissioners. Brussels is also 28 governments.
And it is quite impossible to dictate Europe’s direction against the
will of the national governments and Member States. So when people say
Brussels, they in fact mean themselves. The finger pointed at Brussels
actually points to those who are always going on about Brussels,
Brussels, Brussels. Yes, Brussels gets a lot of things wrong. But
Brussels also does a lot of things right that governments would get
wrong if Brussels weren’t there. So it does not help at all when people
hurl criticisms of all sorts at the Commission, as the Italian Prime
Minister has been doing these last few months; as the Polish government
is doing; as the Finnish Foreign Minister did, when he said the
Commission should not busy itself with the observance of fundamental
rights in Poland, that was not Europe’s business but purely a matter for
the Poles themselves – although the Treaty clearly calls on the
Commission to watch over this kind of thing.
We now
face a crisis – the refugee crisis – that we never thought would beset
us. On taking office, the Commission devoted considerable space to the
issue of migration, because we already sensed – sensed rather than knew –
that something was coming. Anyone who has kept a careful eye on the
world situation, anyone with a real concern for Africa rather than just
talking about Africa, anyone who has observed the veritable exodus under
way there over the years – there are 60 million refugees in Africa, 60
million of them – must have known something was coming. That it would
happen on such a scale, in such concentration – that we never imagined.
But that something was coming, quite literally – that we did know. As
early as May last year, the Commission therefore put forward proposals –
European proposals: namely that the refugees should be shared out –
relocated – across all the Member States of the Union. The Council of
Ministers approved the scheme last autumn. And the Member States –
though not all of them – are refusing to implement their own decisions.
It is the first time this kind of thing has happened in the European
Union, for the Council to adopt legislation and then decide a few days
later not to apply it. Here, we, the Commission will not back down from
calling on the Member States to do what they have themselves decided. I
know that it will not be easy. Because what is needed is not just for
the Member States to be prepared to take in refugees – which they are
increasingly willing to do, though not yet to the extent required. The
refugees themselves must also be prepared to accept the invitation. What
bothers me in particular – and we see it every day – is when refugees
in Greece and Italy, especially Greece, simply choose where they want to
go themselves. The refugees in Greece all say: Germany, Germany,
Germany. That cannot go on. As a result, some countries have to bear a
very heavy burden: Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands too – last year
the Netherlands took in 57,000 refugees. That is twice as many as the
year before. And this year the number will not be any lower unless we
frame our policy to prevent it from happening. So we will have to focus
hard on this issue all the time, making it clear to refugees – above all
the genuine ones, not the economic migrants but the genuine asylum
seekers who make their way to Europe to escape from war and violence –
that it is not up to them to decide where to go, that it is up to the
governments to decide where to assign them a home. Luxembourg was the
first country to start implementing the decision. The Luxembourg
government publicly announced in Greece that 30 refugees could come to
Luxembourg. But no one wanted to go. It was like searching for a needle
in a haystack to find 30 who were prepared to board a plane to
Luxembourg – as if Luxembourg were the poorhouse of Europe. It is a very
real problem and the message needs to be brought home again and again.
It makes me weep to see the images that assail us. But it also has to be
realised that the broad picture is not just black and white – yes,
governments must do more, but refugees must also be cooperative.
We
urgently need to strengthen the protection of our external borders, as
is currently being done. On 15 December, the Commission tabled a
comprehensive proposal for protecting the EU's external borders and
coastlines, which governments approved in principle, although they are
now having trouble implementing the decision. Council Working Groups,
some 20 in total, are being held in which national representatives are
saying precisely the opposite of what was backed by their heads of
government at the European Council, which is holding up any real
progress. However, if we fail to better protect our external borders,
especially the border between Greece and Turkey, we will never manage to
overcome the crisis. This is why, in Turkey and at its border with
Greece, we have to bring the flow of refugees heading from Turkey to
Greece, and then onwards to northern Europe under contIn the waters
between Greece and Turkey, we now have NATO ships, although the exact
demarcation is a subject of heated debate between the two NATO
countries. NATO is helping, a fact which is proving difficult given
Turkey’s reluctance to allow these ships into its waters. Nevertheless,
we are managing to resolve the issue. Yesterday, Greece also began
sending back refugees to Turkey – a fact which many are unaware of. Just
yesterday, 308 refugees were returned. Although only a small number,
this is the first time the readmission agreement between Greece and
Turkey has actually been implemented.
With Turkey, we
have agreed a Joint Action Plan, at a cost of €3 billion to Europeans.
This is not €3 billion which will be handed over to Turkey, but €3
billion which will fund projects to help Syrian refugees in Turkey. We
will be building schools and hospitals. There are hundreds of thousands
of Syrian children currently living in Turkey who are not going to
school despite being of school age. If we fail to manage the issue of
helping children, in particular orphaned children, a lost generation
will emerge. We cannot allow that. We must remain active on this front,
as we currently are. Next week will see projects worth a total of €300
million getting under way, and over the coming years we will see more of
the same if the need is still there.
Yesterday, the
Commission agreed a €700 million emergency aid programme for Greece and
other countries. However, the focus will be predominantly on Greece,
given the large-scale humanitarian crisis beginning to unfold there –
indeed, for many, it already exists. That is because Europe is not
acting like it should. It is because there is not enough Union in the
European Union and not enough Europe in the European Union, with Member
States thinking that the refugee crisis can be solved by working alone,
as nations. But only a European response can solve a Europe-wide problem
that has been imported to Europe from other parts of the globe.
Isolated national action, although sometimes understandable, in not
welcome because when one country secures its own borders, this (a) does
not solve the refugee problem and (b) will destroy the internal market
completely.
People need to know that there are 1.7
million cross-border commuters in Europe. People need to know that 52.4
million cross-border freight transport operations occur each year in
Europe. People need to know that it costs €53 when a lorry has to wait
at a border for 30 minutes. Knowing how many lorries in the Netherlands
travel between Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands every day, you can
soon work out how much this costs. The internal market will not survive
the refugee crisis if we do not manage to secure our external borders
jointly and if we do not move away from this senseless policy of
countries doing whatever they want, without any thought for the impact
of their actions on the neighbouring Member States.
It
is regrettable that border access has been restricted by Austria, as
this basically closes the border between two Schengen countries. Doing
so has nothing to do with protecting our external borders. When, much to
my disliking, Hungary built a fence along its border with Serbia and
Croatia, this could be called external border protection given that
those countries are not part of Schengen. It is not the ideal form of
protection, but so be it. However, by closing the border once more
between two Schengen countries, we are slowly but surely destroying the
European internal market and everything associated with it.
Consequently, we must resist this kind of thing vigorously.
We
could talk for hours about the refugee crisis. That is indeed what our
heads of government have been doing for the last six months and will be
doing again next Monday, when talks will finally be held with Turkey. I
would like to thank you, Léon, for saying that without Turkey, there is
no solution to the crisis. Turkey is certainly a difficult partner. I
could also talk for hours about human rights, press freedom and similar
issues in Turkey. However, on the matter of stemming the flow of
refugees, Turkey is the European Union’s most important partner –
although in principle I am not in favour of pushing back the flow since
it is my view, based on the Christian values adhered to in the European
Union, that we are duty-bound to offer a new home to those fleeing war
and violence.
What has become of us? The richest
continent in the world, with 500 million inhabitants, and yet to say
from the outset that we would be unable to accept one or two million
refugees. Talking to the King of Jordan and the Lebanese Prime Minister,
as I do on a regular basis, leaves me feeling ashamed. Jordan, a
country with 8-9 million inhabitants, has taken over 630 000 refugees
from Syria, a figure which excludes the 500 000 Palestinian refugees. In
Lebanon, 25 % of the population are refugees, newly arrived from Syria.
And we, as Europeans, say we can’t manage. What must the others think
of us? This is ‘reputation damage’ we are inflicting on ourselves:
people around the world who have always looked at Europe with great hope
are suddenly discovering that we are mired in our own egoism, unable to
agree with one another in order to tackle the refugee crisis decently.
I
am therefore urging Member State governments to resist those ideas
which are springing up everywhere: for example, the idea of taking
national measures after the end of an EU Presidency. This is not the
road we should be going down in Europe. Likewise, we must not trivialise
the refugee crisis. This is why I have said that there are also
obligations for refugees. We need to see the overall picture, look at
everything that is happening, with a sense of solidarity. And given that
the mass migration will continue, we need a permanent distribution
mechanism between the 28 Member States of the European Union.
We
are currently living in a time of referenda. Mr Orbán, the Hungarian
Prime Minister, is holding a referendum on the basis for distributing
refugees between all 28 countries. And these referenda seem to be
contagious. The United Kingdom will be holding its referendum on 23 June
– although that cannot possibly go badly because it is also
Luxembourg’s National Holiday. All will be fine. The Hungarians will be
holding their referendum, and then the Dutch, with the good experience
of referenda which there is here, will be holding theirs on 6 April. I
will not be interfering. I once said it would be a bad idea to vote ‘no’
and was, in turn, savaged by the Dutch press, as if to say no one ever
has the right to talk about matters concerning the Dutch people. Seen
the other way round, this would mean that the Dutch no longer have the
right to talk about matters affecting other people, which, if it were
the case, would leave the Dutch newspapers half-empty. In this respect,
I'll say it loud and clear: having one’s say without coming across like a
schoolmaster is pointless. I have not come to the Netherlands to say:
listen here; you should do this and that. This is not how things are
done, most certainly not in the Netherlands.
It is no
laughing matter, however. If the Dutch vote ‘no’, Europe will have a
problem. That problem is destabilisation. We need to bear this in mind,
because Ukraine expects Europe to stick to what was agreed. We should
not fall into the trap of thinking that this is about Ukraine joining
the EU. Many Dutch people I talk to in Brussels – ordinary people, not
Commission officials – make that mistake. In reality, it is about trade
and trade agreements. I can hardly imagine an old, successful trading
nation like the Netherlands rejecting a trade agreement with a country,
like Ukraine, that is so important for European stability. So let me
repeat: we need to explain to people that it is not about EU accession.
Ukraine will not join the EU during my term of office. In any case, I
have said – rather bluntly – that there will be no new members over the
next five years, because I do not believe any of the countries in
waiting will fulfil the conditions in that time frame.
We
have rushed things in the past when it comes to enlargement. I am also
guilty, because I thought it was an historic event and that we had to
reunite European history and geography. Hence the accession of the ‘new’
Member States (in 2004). In some cases, though, we jumped the gun, and
we will not make the same mistake again. Ukraine will certainly not join
the EU in the next 20 to 25 years. Nor will it join NATO,
Secretary-General. I actually wanted to talk about the Dutch referendum,
not lecture the Ukrainians, but I know many Dutch people are very
worried that this will be the first step to Ukraine joining the EU. But
we can definitely say that is not the case. I would therefore be happy
if the Dutch voted ‘yes’, because it is about the Dutch, Europe and the
other parts of Europe. Everybody who goes to the polls will be a
statesman and should ask themselves what the final outcome would be if
everybody else voted like them. I know the Dutch are practical people,
and I expect them to vote ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’, because the last ‘no’
caused a lot of headaches in Europe. Luxembourg held the Council
Presidency at the time, and now a Luxembourger is in the Commission
President’s chair, and I do not want to have to go through that again.
Just
a word on ‘Brexit’ – though without really saying anything, as I have
resolved never to say much on the frequent occasions when I talk about
it, since it would not be fitting for a Commission President to
interfere in the British referendum campaign. The Commission is even
more unpopular in the UK than in other countries, and it is quite an
achievement to be unpopular in the UK. Everything a Commission President
or the Commission says to the UK has unintended consequences. I would
only say that the Prime Minister obtained as much as he could and the
other 27 leaders gave as much as they could. It is a fair deal for the
UK and for the other Member States. I would be very happy if we could
consign the issue to confines of history as quickly as possible, because
if it drags on for years, everything will go wrong in Europe. That is
why there can be no renegotiation with the British, whom I am otherwise
very fond of, after a ‘no’ vote. Not just because the Prime Minister
voted against me as Commission President, but also because this time he
was extremely glad we were able to help him sort out his problem, a
problem of his own making.
When talking about Europe,
we should not forget why, after the Second World War, the States of
Europe decided not to repeat the crass errors of the last century. And
the people returning home from the front and the concentration camps at
the end of the war did not complain about the tasks that lay ahead as
much as we do today. When I compare my life with my father’s it is clear
to me that we are very fortunate. We grew up in bright sunshine, while
others still have to live in darkness. Our fathers and grandfathers knew
nothing but rain, thunderstorms and hail. So what is at stake is still
the same. Verdun – 100 years ago. Verdun is a poignant story, because of
the terrible things that happened there, but also because, at the end
of the 1920s, young people from Germany and France shook hands on its
battlefields. Then 10 years later it all started again – peace can never
be taken for granted. Anyone who thinks peace is everlasting could not
be more wrong. War is again being waged in Europe. When there was talk
of war in Europe a couple of years ago, people laughed it off. No one is
laughing any more after the events in Ukraine and Crimea. And we had no
cause to laugh because 20 years ago war was raging in Bosnia, Kosovo
and throughout the Balkans, which remains a highly complicated and
sensitive region of Europe. That is why we must not lose sight of the
Western Balkans when it comes to the refugee question.
So,
I think that Europe will always benefit if we constantly remind people
that it is a great project for peace. Those who do not believe in
Europe, doubt it, or are exasperated by it should visit the graves of
our wars.
Thank you "
Almere-Digest
