News

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am honoured to participate in this conference and first of all I would like to thank the European Commission Representation in Denmark for this invitation. National calendars are being filled with events of various kinds, but one subject, namely on the future of the European Union, will start attracting more and more attention in different fora and in different domains. Today's conference is a good example of this evolving trend.

Method of the Debate

The Europe-wide debate that has been officially started is a novelty in a number of aspects. Apart from its subject, the most important feature is the participants of the debate. Reaching out beyond the governmental corridors and outside the present member-states is a challenging method but it is a prerequisite for shared vision about Europe.

Having a wide audience of participants serves two principle goals:

* First, it offers a wide pool of ideas and intellectual enrichment of the options that will eventually be put on the negotiating table in the 2004 Inter-Governmental Conference. The efficiency of the future IGC should be higher thanks to the possibility of using a sort of "multiple-options" at least for the initial part of the Conference. To this end it is important to collect concepts from academia and other sources of intellectual thought.

* Second, it is important to stimulate an interest of the European population in European politics and its future. The level of public support for European processes including the enlargement of the European Union is a constant reference. The debate on the future should challenge people to learn and think more about the European Union. One crucial requirement, however, here should be a link between the present and the future. Vast groups of people are allergic to abstract futurology detached from reality. Real people see real problems, which should, in their view, be necessarily addressed. This is a very simplified but a "real" rephrase of what we call legitimacy.

Another important feature of the debate is giving voice to the future members of the European Union. Just like with a wider population, involving candidate countries will broaden the intellectual "acquis" for the next IGC and will, at the same time, be prompted to pause for a moment in the time consuming accession negotiations and think about a bigger picture.

In two weeks our foreign ministers will meet in Nykoping for an informal exchange of ideas. Such an exchange should continue in a variety of official and unofficial formats. Without participation of Europeans from East and West we cannot claim to build a Union that will be shared, effective, and legitimate.

The debate is unfolding in Lithuania as well. Recently the Lithuanian Prime Minister called upon Lithuanian interest groups, youth organisations, political parties and other segments of civil society to start comprehensive discussion covering various aspects pertaining to future shape and policies of the Union. Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs has a personal commitment to induce discussion inside the country. He posed a challenge to the Lithuanian parliamentarians who have accepted it. There shall be a group of prominent scholars who will chart Lithuania's vision on the future of the European Union sector-wise and as a whole. I believe, therefore, that Lithuania will contribute to the debate in various ways, including insertions in the "futurum"website.

In the run up to the IGC which in itself is far from being a certain conclusion of the future debate, we have enough time to have a consistent and orderly discussion. There are chronological guidelines outlined by Mr. R.Prodi, President of the European Commission. This year is devoted for a start-up of reflection while next two years for a further structured discussion. An interim semi-annual stock has to be taken on the highest political level. For 2001, "pause and ponder" will be done in Stockholm and Laeken.

On Nice

Lithuania is satisfied with institutional reforms agreed upon in Nice. Not only were they a big step towards enlargement but they have also ensured a fair representation of my country in a bigger Union.

Nice decisions have given a boost to the public interest in Lithuania. Lithuanians began projecting their country among the members-states. They realised that a number of votes in the EU institutions is something important; but perhaps what is even more important is to learn to use them in the interests of Lithuania and Europe.

Nice also prompted a decision on the method of the debate on which I have already spoken. Having witnessed deficiencies of conventional intergovernmental negotiations, EU member-states understood that they needed something different. They have opted for a "convention".

We are thus now in the post-Nice period with agenda, time framework and participants.

Post-Nice agenda

Agenda itself

The Nice declaration on the future of the European Union established an agenda for the debate. Although the four questions of this agenda cannot quite be called Nice leftovers, they have been crystallised out off the previous IGC thus representing the political issues that require solutions. They do go to the very heart of the political nature of the European Union.

There is, however, a high probability that the four questions do not exhaust the scope of the debate. There have already been numerous appeals to also think about the future of specific policies that have fundamental implications for the future of the European Union. As opposed to the four questions on the agenda focussing mainly on the governing of the Union, the policy-specific issues may depict what the future of the EU will be about. Just to illustrate with one example, it is hardly deniable that future of the Common Agricultural Policy will be crucial. Same goes for cohesion policy or foreign and security policy.

Policy-specific items play an important role primarily because they are of great interest for the European citizens both in the West and in the East. Since the current debate about the future is meant to draw on the wide public opinion, it has to take due regard of what worries people in their daily lives.

Another central factor is enlargement which is the main engine of the current debate. If EU is to remain a successful project, it has to take into account which policies need to be reformed or furthered for a bigger Union.

This aspect is very important for the candidate countries, including Lithuania. We are aiming to join the European Union that we know and that has proved a success. If anything is to change, it has to be addressed in such a way that we do not wake up to a Union which is totally different from the one to which we started our journey a decade ago. Naturally, there might be exceptions, as for example on the Common agricultural policy.

This being said, I would like to come back to the four questions that we have.

1. Delimitation of Powers

It is difficult for a country that has always looked at the European Union from outside to judge whether and which particular deficiencies warrant a change. For historical reasons, Lithuanians have always fought for and cherished sovereignty. Consistent application of the principle of subsidiarity is, therefore, a natural interest of Lithuania who, as any other nation, has a strong feeling of responsibility for its own faith.

On the other hand, for geopolitical reasons and, more specifically, because of our size, we realise that, in many instances, we can further our interests through common actions together with other nations better than alone. In such cases we are learning to entrust our interest to international and supranational establishments composed of members who are likeminded and whom we can trust. European Union is about trust. We have bred an understanding that European Union cannot be interested in undermining our interests. I think we are learning this "win-win" game.

From a different angle, a delimitation of powers also calls for a determination on which European institutions do what. In fact, it is this aspect that gives the strongest political taste to the future debate. In the most simplified version, the discussion has shifted forth and back along a line between two extremes or options - inter-governmental and communitarian.

Lithuanian thinking rests on simple but tested experiences. It is first of all the communitarian method that has made the EU what it is today: a Union that accommodates the big and protects the small. Arguing for strengthening of the inter-governmentalism at the expense of communitarianism is, to a large extent, an attempt in a way to turn the integration clock backwards. Thus the community method must be preserved, strengthened and extended as the EU enlarges.

Of course, in some cases the intergovernmental method might also be needed. In some cases, it may be the only way where supranationalism cannot be introduced for the time being or at all. But such cases are too often marked with a stumbling decision-making and sometimes with lack of transparency and domination of the big.

The dilemma of these two methods can be partly solved by a clearer delimitation of competencies. The division of power should not, therefore, be limited to the principle of subsidiarity but must also say which issues and areas pertaining to the European competencies are bound to be dealt with in a communitarian way and which should be left for intergovernmental co-operation. Such a division should be accompanied by a common understanding that European integration has not reached its limits and should thus be pursued further.

I have made the simplification of the discussion into a division between intergovernmentalism and communitarianism without a prejudice to proposals that criticise the community method and go beyond it towards a political union. It is a brave and progressive thinking which merits high respect. But it equally calls for a note of caution or at least a clearer explanation. The ideas about a possible development of the Union into a federal creation are parallel to the enlargement and, therefore, sometimes lead to suspicions that they are driven by fears that adding new poorer members would dilute the Union. The suspicion may grow because these ideas are coupled with suggestions about a need for internal centres of deeper integration. Is it again about trust or rather mistrust that new countries will hold back or slow a seemingly unstoppable process of European integration? Or is it about something else? I am convinced that this question will need to be answered before the enlargement takes place.

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights

It is up to the political will of the member-states to decide what status of the Charter is to be accorded. It is a progressive instrument. The rights enshrined in the Charter address the challenges faced in a modern and globalised world. It goes further than traditional human rights instruments and is thus a guarantee that the European Union goes into the 21st century being equipped with a sound human dimension.

Concerns have been raised about a possible undermining of the existing human rights protection system based on the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. But this is an unlikely case. It is hard to expect that Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights will agree to go in substance as far as the Charter in a foreseeable future while any attempt of a further protection of fundamental human rights by the European Union is only to be applauded and presented as an example to be followed by others.

3. Simplification of Treaties

The matter is threefold:

* First, the task is to make a complex library of the European Union treaties to be better understood. Comprehensibility has been a problem for ordinary people almost as much as for qualified experts. Raising of popular support for the Union's tasks rests on the understanding by the European citizens. Denmark was a good example of difficulties of this kind when the ratification of the Maastricht treaty was to be promoted by distribution of the treaty text to the voters. It is hard to judge how much it helped to generate a positive vote but one thing was clear - the text was difficult to understand.

* Secondly, the applicability of the texts of the founding treaties may be enhanced by codification. Codification is a way of making treaties more comprehensible. On the other hand, Nice declaration suggests that the meaning of the Treaties must remain unchanged. Being an optimist, I believe that skillful legal techniques might help to achieve the goal.

4. Role of National Parliaments

The issue of relations of national parliaments in the European architecture, and more narrowly, in decision-making of the European Union is profoundly interesting. It goes to the core of the notion of democracy in circumstances very different from national politics. The way of building the European Union into a supranational institution has primarily been of intergovernmental character.

Apart from the role of European judiciary, the source of the European legislation that has a supremacy over national law of the European Union has been an intergovernmental body - the Council. Given the accountability of the members of the Council to their respective national parliaments, the situation is highly politically charged.

Proposals to establish a second chamber composed of national parliamentarians have been voiced. Would its functions limited to the supervision of the application of the subsidiarity principle or would it legislate? Proposals on the second chamber are aimed at injecting legitimacy of the European legislation. However, it might come at the expense of another objective - simplification and comprehensibility. A new structure would increase the complexity of the decision-making in the European Union.

Another possible way of tackling a perceived need for a greater legitimacy of the European Union and stronger accountability of the decision-makers is enhancing national parliamentary control of governments that legislate in the European Council. There are various procedures in place in different countries for such parliamentary control.

Having said this let me also touch on one policy area that will influence the future shape of the European Union.

Common Agricultural Policy

Let me touch also on policy-related areas and other issues that will also shape the future of the European Union.

In light of future negotiations in the framework of WTO and the burden posed to the EU budget by current CAP expenditure, we in Lithuania understand that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU is a need in itself as well as a prerequisite for the future enlargement of the EU. For this very reason Lithuania would welcome the formulation of a clear vision of the future CAP which should be based on a principle of non-discrimination regarding the candidate countries. We would welcome the speedy reform of the CAP which, we expect, inter alia, will address the issue of food safety and that of multifunctionality, strengthen the second pillar of CAP related to rural development, include elements on environment and ecological agriculture. I would not rule out scenarios where supposed reductions in direct support to farmers could lead to lower prices for agricultural products and ensure stronger competitive position of the Union in the world agro-food markets.

Kaliningrad

Although different in nature but still an important element in Lithuania's integrationist efforts is our co-operation with Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation. The region will be affected by the future enlargement and will become a geographic enclave within the Union.

Lithuania has developed an extensive practical experience during the past years in initiating bilateral and multilateral projects with the participation of Kaliningrad region in the fields of promotion of investment, training of public administration, environmental protection, civic security, energy and infrastructure.

On the basis of the Commission's Communication, a discussion within the European Union and with Russia has started. Naturally, we attach a great importance to the frame of this discussion. I would like to note that Lithuania is interested in participation in bilateral discussions as well as in multilateral contacts when needed and necessary.

We can see that this issue is also high on the agenda of the Swedish Presidency. In the light of the 'Northern Dimension' Lithuania is supporting EU initiatives and this regional co-operation with Kaliningrad could become a model for future relations between Russia and EU. The official visit to Moscow of the President of Lithuania few weeks ago was an important event in this regard.

Recently Lithuania presented its views and proposals concerning Kaliningrad at the meeting on the "Northern Dimension Initiative" held in Luxembourg.

I mention this because I think it is important that the future Union should be ready and willing to address regional matters in a coherent way.

Conclusion

Lithuania wants the European Union to be more efficient, stronger, playing a significant role in the world and corresponding to the wishes and well-being of citizens. The EU is a unique and constantly changing political organisation, which was and will be enlarging because nations found its model of functioning suitable and attractive. Thus the will to reform, to think of better functioning in the future seems as a very logical continuation of the EU evolution.

We are starting this debate in Lithuania. It goes naturally in parallel with our accession process. Lithuanian politics is equally interested in how the European Union will operate as well as what will the substance of the Union in specific areas be. As I said previously, agenda of the debate should be open-ended if we want to see the broadest possible participation of our populations. This is crucial for wide support in favour of enlargement and explaining to our people that even short time sacrifices will result in long-term benefits.

Let me finish by saying that I sincerely hope and anticipate that the dynamism, rationalism and productivity will go all the time along this important discussion.

 Thank you for your attention.