“Малі країни вступають в ЕС”. - Шановні ХДМівці, прошу до Вашої уваги статтю Давіда Ріка віце-президента ДЕМІК (Чехія) “Малі країни вступають в ЕС”

02:00, 08.03.2003

Автор: Адміністратор

Шановні ХДМівці, прошу до Вашої уваги статтю Давіда Ріка віце-президента ДЕМІК (Чехія) “Малі країни вступають в ЕС”. На мою думку позиція Давіда є дуже цікавої для нас, як для молодих політиків, які дуже часто говорять про ЄС, як про щось безперечно позитивне. Але будь-що має два боки, і тут нам треба замислитися, що ми можемо пропонувати ЕС під час переговорчого процесу про вступ України в ЄС.

Ваш Владіс

David Ryc: Small Countries entering the European Union

DEMYC Vice-Charmain, David Ryc, comes up with critical remarks on further unification processes within EU. He sees them as being favorable for bigger states only with smaller states lacking equal position in the EU of 25. To get to know more, read his speech adressed on DEMYC's Iceland session.

Dear DEMYC friends, ladies and gentlemen,

Let me firstly express my thanks to the SUS for hosting this meeting in what is the very corner of the European continent. It was only a week ago, when my honorable friend Simmi Sigurgeirsson called me to Prague and asked me to deliver a speech in this meeting about the role of small countries in an enlarged Europe or rather, the European Union, I should say, being in Iceland and distinguishing between Europe and the European Union. By coincidence it was at a moment when I was reading a transcription of the French president’s (Mr Chirac's) presentation of outcomes from the last EU Summit on Iraq. Not only his furious remarks on applicant countries which without any consultations with France took their own position towards potential conflict in Iraq, not only Mr Schroder's low understanding where the world around him is moving but also the general feeling that the EU is driven towards further centralization and strengthening of the bigger states instead of smaller ones – all this leads me to come up with some critical remarks on future of the European Union, likely to be enlarged by 9 small states and one bigger state from next year.

I am sure that there is not a single person in this room who would question how close - in terms of historical, economic, political and cultural relations - this tiny island and European continent is. But honestly, may I also say this about your - and not only yours but other Westerners as well - feelings towards the other corner of the European continent? Iceland and my country – the Czech Republic – both small countries with rich history and dynamic present times, though very different in natural resources and geographical disposition – have something in common. Both countries were many times objects of history rather than those powers giving shape and form to historical reality. Look at the paradoxes of history. Although Icelandic explorers were the first Europeans who reached North American shores many years before Christopher Columbus, it was the man from Genova serving Spanish royal interests who is generally known as a founder of America. To avoid a fragile position on the very edge of the European continent, Iceland took an opportunity to become a founding member of NATO in 1949 and thus linked its future with the Euro-Atlantic community. Under the protection of NATO, the Icelandic people have not felt a necessity to give up Iceland’s sovereignty in favour of the EU. Fair enough. It is a similar story, but a little bit different in the end with the Czechs. Although the Czech king George of Podebrady had already proposed in 15th century to establish an international league of kingdoms to solve any potential military or economic conflicts in a peaceful way, the ideas of messieurs Schumann and Monet are eventually learned from official EU textbooks as cornerstones of European integration process. The Iron curtain fell down before NATO was established and the Czech Republic was cut off from any integration processes in Europe for 40 years. We lost our sovereignty, we lost our political and economic freedom, we lost the touch with dynamic recovery of European economies – all this in favour of totalitarian centralized regime ruled and directed from Moscow. The immediate reaction of people in my country after the fall of communism in 1989 was the creation of the slogan “Back to Europe” which was chanted by thousands in squares and streets all over Czechoslovakia and, as I believe, in all eastern European countries which had moved away from a communist regime. We enjoyed newly, or rather re-established, sovereignty, we enjoyed political and economic freedom again and were ready to share them with European Communities. It lasted 13 long years, 13 years of discussions, negotiations, implementations of EU policies and directives, harmonisation of law etc., when the EU expressed clearly and unambiguously: you are ready to join the club.

For all these 13 years we have been discussing what our role should be in an enlarged EU, what position will we gain in a new political map of Europe ? What can a country the size and importance of the Czech Republic contribute to a better European future? I am in no position to provide you with a unique and the only possible opinion in this. I am not speaking on behalf of the Czech Republic, neither am I representing the official governmental line. I am also afraid that what I will say will not correspond to all those who take themselves as the center-right oriented political groups in the Czech political spectrum. But I am sure that thousands, if not millions of liberal-conservatives all over post communist countries, who believe in true freedom, democratic government, rule of law and the free market would probably understand my point of view.

Lets get back to the initial question. Taking the logic of Mr Chirac, our role in the future EU should be “to be silent”. We have already missed our chance to do so very recently when an unprecedented EU debate about the potential threat from the Iraqi regime emerged. According to another French officer, commissioner Michel Barnier, some of the applicant countries lacked a “European reflex”. In other words, if you did not go along with the integrationist process and supported unquestioningly the leadership of France and Germany, you lacked the “European reflex”. I do not suspect that you follow Mr Chirac's or Mr Barnier's logic and thus will allow me to present my answer to the questions mentioned before.

I believe it is not a small post communist country, which missed its chance. When the Berlin Wall fell, the European Community was faced with an historic opportunity to create a real European unity. To do this, however, it would have had to leave ideas of a united European single state. Instead of deepening integration and further unification in its western part, it should have negotiated a free trade area between itself and the former communist countries. Instead the EU first shilly-shallied and played a dead beatle. Then it began to examine the preparedness and overall qualifications of applicants. Hand in hand went process of imposing the acquis communautaire on their weaker economies. Much of the 85.000 pages of acquis is considered onerous and counterproductive by businesses in the west, and, at times, the EU put itself in the position of re-imposing centralised and bureaucratic regulations on our countries that were still celebrating the end of those imposed by the Soviet Union. As the negotiations progressed, we have realised that the EU was more concerned with protecting its own vested interests than with helping countries that had suffered fourty years of Communist oppression.

Instead of a dynamic move forward from centrally planned economy towards a highly competitve one we are facing outdated ideas going just the other way round. An interesting question for candidate countries, indeed, was whether the EU would balance its approach in the Common Agricultural Policy fairly between existing members and them. Would it solve the problems of direct payments by means of involving similar treatment of candidates and existing members, or by discriminating against the candidates ? The outcomes from the final stage of negotiations have shown that the EU has chosen discrimination: farmers in the EU candidate countries will get much less support, even after membership, than farmers in existing member states.

However, it is not about labelling the EU guilty. We must be critical to ourselves as well. We have failed in convincing European political leaders that a post-Communist World does not need centralised, bureaucratised structures, nor a fortress Europe, nor a new European citizenship, nor a European army. We have failed in explaining that our need is a new, free, open Europe of independent states and a free market (not a single market of quotas, regulations and harmonisation). Negative experience from our past with over-regulations and bureaucratism of the soviet type were not taken seriously by the EU. And it is also our mistake.

I agree with those who say that EU must look beyond the divisions of the cold war and beyond the obsessions of the post-War period. Western Europe should look to Eastern Europe as to a partner. That cannot be done while the EU holds the notion that the only way forward is to create a single European superstate that will swallow all the existing ones. The Treaty of Nice only gives rise to further divisions between small and big states and opens a gate for second class membership for the applicant countries in the near future. Should we stand aside and be silent to this ? I do not think so.

We, conservatives and liberal-conservatives, are often criticised - not only by our leftist oponents but also by our christian-democratic partners - for not being enthusiastic enough in creating a new Europe. This might be true if we look to a new shape of Europe purely from their perspective. Yes, I have to confess: I have a low understanding and even no enthusiasm at all for building a new Europe as an alianate construct suffering from democratic control and visible benefits for European citizens. In every document produced under the banner of the EU in the last couple of years (starting from the Maastricht Treaty, ending by the Treaty of Nice or the Laeken Declaration, if you want) you can find nice words about „making the EU closer to its citizens“. Words, words, words – says prince Hamlet in a breathtaking scene of famous Shakespearian drama and called for actions instead. We must follow this inspiration. We will not obstruct our entry into the EU and thus persuade the Czech people to say NO in the upcoming referendum, we will not simply reject proposals coming from various bodies of the EU, we will use all our efforts to offer a realistic and credible alternative.

We must say strongly – we are the people who do not need an EU Constitution. We do not need a document which constitutes a single state if the the same „state“ declares that it will respect the constitutional structure of all its members. The EU will have 25 members and even more, so lets respect 25 individual constitutions because they reflect different historical developments of national states – the most natural and the only logical entities in the European continent. Ordinary people feel that their national constitutions give them a chance to identify sufficiently with their own state and democraticaly constituted parliaments and governments. They can read articles they understand and give them a clear platform to be involved and to control under democratic rules. They are familiar with their „home“ institutions, politicians, judges. But look at the European level. The only indicator which gives a supranational EU a legitimate mandate are direct elections to the European parliament. Is 32 % (the turnout of EU elections in 1999) enough to legitimate democratic processes within EU? I believe it is not. When reading a draft of the first 16 articles of the future EU Constitution, I feel disillusioned. Is the discovery of space among the main objectives of EU something that ordinary Europeans realy require? I believe it is not. Are coordination of national economic policies (including taxation), full employment or social justice provisions which liberal-conservative activist should applaud ? I believe they are not. Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights be an integral part of the so called EU Constitution when almost every aspect of fundamental human rights is incorporated to the national constitutions ? No, it should not.

What is the alternative ? We have to press the EU to return certain powers to MPs and put national parliaments in charge, because that is where people feel democratically represented. Instead, what we are seeing is, that the Convention is trying to democratise the existing EU institutions by giving them more power and indirectly electing their presidents. To the ordinary voter this is just politicians giving themselves more titles. Furthermore, there is a strong pressure from the Commission to takeover more and more competencies. It is essential to get the Commission back under democratic control of the democraticaly elected bodies (national parliaments for instance).

Last but not least, we must help people to feel comfortable with the democratic orders of the Union. The Convention is supposed to design “a more democratic, transparent and efficient European Union”, as mandated by the Laeken Declaration. The results will go to an Intergovernmental Conference due in late 2003 or early 2004. I believe the outcome should be put to referendums in as many member states as possible plus new members as well. The only democratic and fair instrument for legalizing a new EU Constitution if adopted by the IGC is by no means a REFERENDUM. I also belive that all applicant countries will be invited to give their equal vote on outcomes of the Convention in the IGC. It would be highly undemocratic if the representatives of the parliaments and governments from applicant countries had a chance to work in the Convention and then their governments would not have an access to the IGC.

Ladies and gentlemen, a true Europe of Democracies does not need to enlarge – it can simply exist and create a network of agreements. There is a place for all countries in a Europe of Democracies.