Address by Foreign Minister Urmas Paet on the first reading of the Ratification of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe
To the Riigikogu on behalf of the Government of Estonia
8 February 2006
Honourable Ms. Chairman,
Respected Members of the Riigikogu,
Dear guests!
Before you is a voluminous and, from the aspect of the development of Europe as a whole, extremely significant document – the Constitutional Treaty for Europe.
The Government signed the Constitutional Treaty for Europe, since it is a good treaty for both Europe and Estonia. It is necessary for the European Union's further development – so that the EU would be able to function better for the benefit of both the Member States and its citizens.
To comprehend the nature of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe (hereinafter the CTE), it is necessary to go back in time and start with the question of why the Treaty was written and why Europe needs such a document.
Today’s European Union is the result of almost 50 years of development. The European Economic Community founded by the six nations in 1957, has grown into the 25 nation European Union, which is active on a noticeably much broader spectrum, and the objectives of which are much more ambitious, than the founding members could ever have imagined. Therefore, in the course of the decades, the Community’s, and later the Union’s, treaty basis has also had to develop. And although neither the later Maastricht and Amsterdam, nor the present Nice Treaty met, already at the time of their signing, all expectations of all the Member States, cooperation between the Member States would today, without these treaties, be much more difficult, and the Union’s role in the international arena smaller.
The CTE, in its present form, is the result of a lengthy and complicated negotiating process. The Treaty’s text, a fragile compromise, went through a very difficult birth, which reflects the European Union’s present political reality, and which could be achieved only after all Member States had made concessions and compromises. It is extremely questionable, whether, in the course of new negotiations, it would be possible to achieve better results.
At both the Convention on the Future of Europe and the inter-governmental conference following it, Estonian representatives made their contribution to the drawing up of the document. In the course of the negotiations, the Riigikogu’s appropriate committee’s and various general sessions were repeatedly familiarised with the Constitutional Treaty. The matter of the CTE has also been debated by the general public and citizens’ associations.
Just as all the previous European Union founding treaties, the Constitutional Treaty for Europe is an international treaty that has been concluded between the Member States. The Government approved the Constitutional Treaty for Europe on 21 October 2004. On 29 October 2004, the document was signed by all EU Member States. The goal was to complete the ratification of the Treaty by 1 November of this year.
Unfortunately, the course of the ratification process, so far, indicates, that the achievement of the aforementioned goal is unlikely. As of today, the CTE has been ratified by 13 States, with the fourteenth, Belgium, being in the final stages of the process. In two Member States, the Treaty was rejected with a referendum. The CTE has been approved by the European Parliament. At e the European Council in June last year, the EU’s heads of state and government decided, that the EU needs a reflection period to get out of its deadlock. At the same time, the continuation of the ratification process was not in any way set in doubt, since every Member State’s opinion concerning the Treaty’s text is essential, and every State makes its own decision about how it will proceed with its domestic processes in this matter.
The States that have approved the CTE by today, expect those that have not ratified it yet, to go on with the process. Only thus, can we get a total picture of the situation, on which to base clear decisions regarding the future of the Treaty, and from which to proceed in debates concerning the future of the EU. And we are mistaken, if we think, that the States, which rejected the CTE, are interested in maintaining the present standstill. At least France has, right after the negative result of the referendum, let it be known, that the ratification process should not be stopped, and that all Member States should express their opinion. It is worth noting, that four Member States – Latvia, Cyprus, Malta, and Luxemburg – ratified the CTE after the “no” referendums.
I will now explain why I regard it as essential, that the honourable Riigikogu, after thorough debate, still ratify the CTE, even if it is not definite that the CTE will become effective, on the EU level. At the same time, it is not impossible, that even the States, which rejected the Treaty, will, in time, ratify it after all, in its present form.
Even if it should happen, that the Treaty, in its present form, does not become effective, our ratification of the Treaty would still send Europe a clear message. It would show, that for Estonia, the European values and political agreements contained in the Treaty are important. Estonia would thus declare that it is now time to move on and strengthen cooperation in realms that are relevant to the increasing of the security and welfare of the inhabitants of the European Union. Thereby, this is also in the interests of us Estonians.
The ratification of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe is essential for Estonia and all of Europe. When I spoke to you last year, on 13 December, I reminded you of our foreign policy’s objectives – to ensure our nation’s security and to increase its welfare. I stressed that, to achieve these very goals, the significant step of acceding to the European Union, had been taken. I believe, that if the Treaty goes into effect, it would help to fulfil both objectives – it would further the EU, making it stronger and more efficient, which would, in turn, also increase the security and welfare of the Estonian people.
Estonia supports the continued enlargement of the European Union, since this would increase Europe’s welfare and stability. Enlargement without the changes contained in the CTE would, however, be difficult, and in the opinion of some Member States and the factions of the European Parliament, outright impossible.
Expressing its opinion about the CTE would be one, albeit small, way for Estonia to help end the present ambiguity of the ratification process.
Naturally, in the present situation, it is necessary to find suitable legal solutions. But there is surprisingly little talk about the political decisions contained within the Treaty – about the concrete objectives, for the achieving of which, the Treaty was actually created. We all wish, that the European Union would be stronger and more dynamic, and more comprehensible for its citizens.
According to a public opinion poll conducted at the end of last year, Estonia’s residents think that the EU’s priorities should be: the reducing of poverty and alienation, the relieving of unemployment, the combating of organised crime, and the ensuring of peace and security.
President Barroso, of the European Commission, has noted that, paradoxically, the opponents of the CTE justified their “no” with the same problems as the Treaty was written to alleviate.
The CTE opponents have claimed, that the Treaty will destroy Europe’s unique social model. Yet, the CTE contains a “social clause” (ART III-117), which commits the Union to take into consideration the requirements for the promoting of a high employment rate, the ensuring of adequate social welfare, and fighting against social alienation.
The second frequent reproach has concerned the lack of democracy in the Union’s institutions. But, the CTE would relieve this very shortcoming, devoting a whole chapter to participatory democracy, giving the European Parliament considerably more weight in the decision-making process, as well as making Council sessions public when new legislation is being debated.
The CTE has been accused of being elitist, although, it actually brings individual citizens and national parliaments closer together with the Union. The CTE stipulates the opportunities for citizen initiatives, as well as gives national parliaments greater rights for monitoring the legislative process.
There has often been criticism of the complexities and diffuseness of the European Union’s structure and functioning principles. But it is precisely the CTE that concentrates the whole previous hodgepodge of treaties into a single clear and readable text.
The CTE also abandons the previous complicated, and somewhat outdated, structure of pillars, creating instead, a unitary and more comprehensible system. With the Treaty, the parallel existence of the concepts of both a Union and a Community, which creates a lot of confusion, would disappear.
The CTE’s importance derives from the fact that it replaces the earlier founding treaties of the European Community and the EU and their amendments with one document, thereby, creating a single and complete legal basis for the Union. Thus, the CTE also integrates the Accession Treaties already in force, including our Accession Treaty, in its full extent, and does not change the conditions under which Estonia acceded to the European Union. These remain in force, as agreed upon in the Accession Treaty.
And now, let me briefly speak about the structure of the Treaty. The Treaty consists of four parts. The first is the general part, which establishes the Union’s objectives, competences, institutional structure, and the principles according to which it functions. The second part contains the Union’s charter of fundamental rights, and the third – the most voluminous part – specifies the policies and functioning of the Union. The last, or fourth part, contains the general and final provisions.
At this point, please allow me to assure you, honourable Members of the Riigikogu, that with the Constitutional Treaty for Europe the basic nature of the European Union does not change – the European Union will remain a union of states, and the new Constitutional Treaty is a treaty between the Members States of the European Union.
I assure you, honourable Members of the Riigikogu, that the CTE does not contain any principle changes, which could conflict with the principles spelled out in the Estonian Constitution or with the conditions of our Accession Treaty. The high-level working group of lawyers appointed by the Riigikogu’s Constitution Committee has come to the same conclusion. The European Constitutional Treaty is a step on the road towards European integration, the whole symbolic significance of which, I regard, as being much greater for the EU than the actual changes contained in it.
The CTE does neither reduce Estonia’s, or any other EU Member State’s sovereignty, nor transfer any Member State’s competences to the Union. The Union can continue to function only within the limit of the competences that the Member States have given the Union, and only to the extent that is necessary for achieving the established objectives. Likewise, the previous complicated distribution of competences based upon founding treaties and the practice of the European Court of Justice, has been brought into the Treaty in a simple and comprehensive form, so that it can be clearly seen who decides what and who is responsible for what. For the first time, the exact process for leaving the EU has been specified.
The CTE contains a whole list of useful amendments, which bring the EU closer to the citizens. These very steps are extremely essential for increasing the citizens’ trust in the EU. Unfortunately, it must be admitted, that for European citizens, the functioning of the EU is often complicated and distant. The CTE tries to alleviate this drawback, giving citizens an opportunity to be included in decision-making in the form of citizens’ initiatives.
Keeping in mind the complexities of the functioning of the EU, an extremely essential principle is the transparency of the EU’s institutions. One opportunity for increasing the transparency of the EU for the citizens is to make the sessions of the Council of Ministers public, when it is taking decisions on new legislation. This would give citizens an opportunity to better observe the behaviour of their governments in the EU’s decision-making processes. Also, this would increase the sense of responsibility of the governments of the Member States towards European matters, by depriving them of the opportunity of blaming the EU for making unpopular decisions, without having to admit that they themselves are the EU.
The Treaty also stipulates the opportunity for more extensive participation of the parliaments of the Member States in EU decision-making, which gives you, dear Members of the Riigikogu, as the representatives of the people, greater opportunities to participate in the EU’s decision-making process. If, according to the existing system, every State can decide whether and how they will include their national parliament in the debate concerning EU draft legislation, then, according to the CTE, parliaments would always have the opportunity to express their position on EU draft legislation. If the parliaments of a third of the Member States find that a Commission legislative initiative does not conform to the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission must re-evaluate its proposal.
The Treaty also includes the Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would become legally binding if the Treaty enters into force. The Charter of Fundamental Rights reflects almost all the basic rights, which are also dealt with in Chapter II of the Estonian Constitution and in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the Charter, it has been clearly spelled out, which basic rights the Union’s institutions must abide by when putting into force Union legislation, and the Member States when implementing this legislation.
For us, the Treaty offers an essential change in the form of an opportunity for more extensive cooperation in the sphere of justice and home affairs. There is no doubt, that, specifically, the sphere of justice and home affairs needs further development so as to ensure security and the rule of law in an environment ruled by the four freedoms of an internal market. After all, the free movement of persons means that, along with all the good, much that is undesirable also moves more freely. Therefore, it is essential, that the Treaty specifies greater opportunities for police cooperation in civil matters and asylum policy.
One of the objectives of the CTE is to also increase the EU’s opportunities to function more noticeably in the field of external relations. The CTE brings all of the EU’s external relations – be it the CSFP, trade policy, or development assistance – within a single framework, and places it under clear EU values. The Treaty specifies, in a separate article, the principles that guide its relations with the outside world. Thus, the CTE significantly increases the importance of values in the EU’s external relations. The Treaty calls for the appointment of a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, merging the posts of the previous Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative of the CFSP, thereby bringing greater coherence and unity to the EU’s foreign policy. Giving the EU the status of a legal entity would enable the Union to conclude treaties with third states, and would make it easier to cooperate in the fight against new security threats. The objective of the European Union’s external service would be to help formulate a common policy, and to ensure the visibility and operability of its representations abroad. The Asian natural disaster, in 2004, demonstrated especially clearly, the importance of efficient consular services for EU citizens in crisis situations. This would also be especially essential for our citizens who might end up in an emergency in a state where Estonia does not have foreign representation.
The Treaty also makes necessary institutional changes so as to improve the functioning of the enlarged Union. Among other things, the number of members in the European Parliament would be increased to 750, which could mean that, in the future, Estonia might have seven seats instead of six. Also, an essential change would be giving to the European Council officially the status of an EU institution. The Presidency would be extended from six months to a year and a half, and instead of one presiding state, there would be a “team” consisting of three Member States. According to the CTE, the European Commission would, until 2014, consist of one citizen from each Member State, after which, the number of commissioners would be reduced to 2/3 of the number of Member States, whereas, the Council could change that number with a unanimous vote.
The CTE is a balanced document, in the creation of which, the most essential interests of all the Member States were taken into consideration. Without a doubt, every Member State – including Estonia – had spheres in which they would have preferred a somewhat different solution. But all kinds of cooperation require the readiness to make compromises, and things are no different in the European Union.
Just as when I was speaking with you a few weeks ago, I stress again the need for thoroughly debating the CTE at both the Estonian and the EU level. This is essential for comprehending the problems for the solution of which this document was formulated. We should all have a better understanding of the European Union as it is today and will be tomorrow. I hope that the Members of the Riigikogu will discuss these matters, even more than before, with the electorate, and will publicly voice their opinions in these matters.
Honourable Members of the Riigikogu,
Please allow me to express my sincerest hope, that the Riigikogu, as the representative of the Estonian people, will not remain a bystander in matters pertaining to the future of Europe, but will clearly express its opinion. Estonia would, thus, give a clear signal, that we wish to participate in the formation of Europe’s future. Our activity today would also help us in the making of future choices, and would be a cornerstone for the creating of our long-range vision of Europe.
The expressing of our opinion about the CTE would be a step, although a small one, towards ending the present ambiguity that has stalled the ratification process. The importance of this step is high both for our own European policy and for the European Union generally. It is possible, that our ratification of the Treaty will set an example for other EU Member States. This could give new life to the debate concerning the future of Europe, transforming a pause of reflection into an active period of debate, which will conclude with the making of concrete decisions.
We must realize that, presently, public opinion in the EU is not at all unified – debates and discussions are bringing forth the most varied of opinions. I therefore have serious doubts about the proposal that the drawing up of a new treaty, or another bout at the negotiating table, would help break the present ratification deadlock.
There is no doubt that the Constitutional Treaty for Europe is, at the moment, the best treaty available. It is a good treaty for Europe, and for Estonia. The ratification of the CTE would clearly show that we wish to proceed towards a stronger, more efficient, and more democratic European Union. Estonia would be declaring that we must increase the efficiency of common endeavours in spheres where it would benefit the security and welfare of the people living in the European Union. We would be demonstrating that we are prepared to think beyond everyday politics and to face the challenges confronting the EU.
8 February 2006
Honourable Ms. Chairman,
Respected Members of the Riigikogu,
Dear guests!
Before you is a voluminous and, from the aspect of the development of Europe as a whole, extremely significant document – the Constitutional Treaty for Europe.
The Government signed the Constitutional Treaty for Europe, since it is a good treaty for both Europe and Estonia. It is necessary for the European Union's further development – so that the EU would be able to function better for the benefit of both the Member States and its citizens.
To comprehend the nature of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe (hereinafter the CTE), it is necessary to go back in time and start with the question of why the Treaty was written and why Europe needs such a document.
Today’s European Union is the result of almost 50 years of development. The European Economic Community founded by the six nations in 1957, has grown into the 25 nation European Union, which is active on a noticeably much broader spectrum, and the objectives of which are much more ambitious, than the founding members could ever have imagined. Therefore, in the course of the decades, the Community’s, and later the Union’s, treaty basis has also had to develop. And although neither the later Maastricht and Amsterdam, nor the present Nice Treaty met, already at the time of their signing, all expectations of all the Member States, cooperation between the Member States would today, without these treaties, be much more difficult, and the Union’s role in the international arena smaller.
The CTE, in its present form, is the result of a lengthy and complicated negotiating process. The Treaty’s text, a fragile compromise, went through a very difficult birth, which reflects the European Union’s present political reality, and which could be achieved only after all Member States had made concessions and compromises. It is extremely questionable, whether, in the course of new negotiations, it would be possible to achieve better results.
At both the Convention on the Future of Europe and the inter-governmental conference following it, Estonian representatives made their contribution to the drawing up of the document. In the course of the negotiations, the Riigikogu’s appropriate committee’s and various general sessions were repeatedly familiarised with the Constitutional Treaty. The matter of the CTE has also been debated by the general public and citizens’ associations.
Just as all the previous European Union founding treaties, the Constitutional Treaty for Europe is an international treaty that has been concluded between the Member States. The Government approved the Constitutional Treaty for Europe on 21 October 2004. On 29 October 2004, the document was signed by all EU Member States. The goal was to complete the ratification of the Treaty by 1 November of this year.
Unfortunately, the course of the ratification process, so far, indicates, that the achievement of the aforementioned goal is unlikely. As of today, the CTE has been ratified by 13 States, with the fourteenth, Belgium, being in the final stages of the process. In two Member States, the Treaty was rejected with a referendum. The CTE has been approved by the European Parliament. At e the European Council in June last year, the EU’s heads of state and government decided, that the EU needs a reflection period to get out of its deadlock. At the same time, the continuation of the ratification process was not in any way set in doubt, since every Member State’s opinion concerning the Treaty’s text is essential, and every State makes its own decision about how it will proceed with its domestic processes in this matter.
The States that have approved the CTE by today, expect those that have not ratified it yet, to go on with the process. Only thus, can we get a total picture of the situation, on which to base clear decisions regarding the future of the Treaty, and from which to proceed in debates concerning the future of the EU. And we are mistaken, if we think, that the States, which rejected the CTE, are interested in maintaining the present standstill. At least France has, right after the negative result of the referendum, let it be known, that the ratification process should not be stopped, and that all Member States should express their opinion. It is worth noting, that four Member States – Latvia, Cyprus, Malta, and Luxemburg – ratified the CTE after the “no” referendums.
I will now explain why I regard it as essential, that the honourable Riigikogu, after thorough debate, still ratify the CTE, even if it is not definite that the CTE will become effective, on the EU level. At the same time, it is not impossible, that even the States, which rejected the Treaty, will, in time, ratify it after all, in its present form.
Even if it should happen, that the Treaty, in its present form, does not become effective, our ratification of the Treaty would still send Europe a clear message. It would show, that for Estonia, the European values and political agreements contained in the Treaty are important. Estonia would thus declare that it is now time to move on and strengthen cooperation in realms that are relevant to the increasing of the security and welfare of the inhabitants of the European Union. Thereby, this is also in the interests of us Estonians.
The ratification of the Constitutional Treaty for Europe is essential for Estonia and all of Europe. When I spoke to you last year, on 13 December, I reminded you of our foreign policy’s objectives – to ensure our nation’s security and to increase its welfare. I stressed that, to achieve these very goals, the significant step of acceding to the European Union, had been taken. I believe, that if the Treaty goes into effect, it would help to fulfil both objectives – it would further the EU, making it stronger and more efficient, which would, in turn, also increase the security and welfare of the Estonian people.
Estonia supports the continued enlargement of the European Union, since this would increase Europe’s welfare and stability. Enlargement without the changes contained in the CTE would, however, be difficult, and in the opinion of some Member States and the factions of the European Parliament, outright impossible.
Expressing its opinion about the CTE would be one, albeit small, way for Estonia to help end the present ambiguity of the ratification process.
Naturally, in the present situation, it is necessary to find suitable legal solutions. But there is surprisingly little talk about the political decisions contained within the Treaty – about the concrete objectives, for the achieving of which, the Treaty was actually created. We all wish, that the European Union would be stronger and more dynamic, and more comprehensible for its citizens.
According to a public opinion poll conducted at the end of last year, Estonia’s residents think that the EU’s priorities should be: the reducing of poverty and alienation, the relieving of unemployment, the combating of organised crime, and the ensuring of peace and security.
President Barroso, of the European Commission, has noted that, paradoxically, the opponents of the CTE justified their “no” with the same problems as the Treaty was written to alleviate.
The CTE opponents have claimed, that the Treaty will destroy Europe’s unique social model. Yet, the CTE contains a “social clause” (ART III-117), which commits the Union to take into consideration the requirements for the promoting of a high employment rate, the ensuring of adequate social welfare, and fighting against social alienation.
The second frequent reproach has concerned the lack of democracy in the Union’s institutions. But, the CTE would relieve this very shortcoming, devoting a whole chapter to participatory democracy, giving the European Parliament considerably more weight in the decision-making process, as well as making Council sessions public when new legislation is being debated.
The CTE has been accused of being elitist, although, it actually brings individual citizens and national parliaments closer together with the Union. The CTE stipulates the opportunities for citizen initiatives, as well as gives national parliaments greater rights for monitoring the legislative process.
There has often been criticism of the complexities and diffuseness of the European Union’s structure and functioning principles. But it is precisely the CTE that concentrates the whole previous hodgepodge of treaties into a single clear and readable text.
The CTE also abandons the previous complicated, and somewhat outdated, structure of pillars, creating instead, a unitary and more comprehensible system. With the Treaty, the parallel existence of the concepts of both a Union and a Community, which creates a lot of confusion, would disappear.
The CTE’s importance derives from the fact that it replaces the earlier founding treaties of the European Community and the EU and their amendments with one document, thereby, creating a single and complete legal basis for the Union. Thus, the CTE also integrates the Accession Treaties already in force, including our Accession Treaty, in its full extent, and does not change the conditions under which Estonia acceded to the European Union. These remain in force, as agreed upon in the Accession Treaty.
And now, let me briefly speak about the structure of the Treaty. The Treaty consists of four parts. The first is the general part, which establishes the Union’s objectives, competences, institutional structure, and the principles according to which it functions. The second part contains the Union’s charter of fundamental rights, and the third – the most voluminous part – specifies the policies and functioning of the Union. The last, or fourth part, contains the general and final provisions.
At this point, please allow me to assure you, honourable Members of the Riigikogu, that with the Constitutional Treaty for Europe the basic nature of the European Union does not change – the European Union will remain a union of states, and the new Constitutional Treaty is a treaty between the Members States of the European Union.
I assure you, honourable Members of the Riigikogu, that the CTE does not contain any principle changes, which could conflict with the principles spelled out in the Estonian Constitution or with the conditions of our Accession Treaty. The high-level working group of lawyers appointed by the Riigikogu’s Constitution Committee has come to the same conclusion. The European Constitutional Treaty is a step on the road towards European integration, the whole symbolic significance of which, I regard, as being much greater for the EU than the actual changes contained in it.
The CTE does neither reduce Estonia’s, or any other EU Member State’s sovereignty, nor transfer any Member State’s competences to the Union. The Union can continue to function only within the limit of the competences that the Member States have given the Union, and only to the extent that is necessary for achieving the established objectives. Likewise, the previous complicated distribution of competences based upon founding treaties and the practice of the European Court of Justice, has been brought into the Treaty in a simple and comprehensive form, so that it can be clearly seen who decides what and who is responsible for what. For the first time, the exact process for leaving the EU has been specified.
The CTE contains a whole list of useful amendments, which bring the EU closer to the citizens. These very steps are extremely essential for increasing the citizens’ trust in the EU. Unfortunately, it must be admitted, that for European citizens, the functioning of the EU is often complicated and distant. The CTE tries to alleviate this drawback, giving citizens an opportunity to be included in decision-making in the form of citizens’ initiatives.
Keeping in mind the complexities of the functioning of the EU, an extremely essential principle is the transparency of the EU’s institutions. One opportunity for increasing the transparency of the EU for the citizens is to make the sessions of the Council of Ministers public, when it is taking decisions on new legislation. This would give citizens an opportunity to better observe the behaviour of their governments in the EU’s decision-making processes. Also, this would increase the sense of responsibility of the governments of the Member States towards European matters, by depriving them of the opportunity of blaming the EU for making unpopular decisions, without having to admit that they themselves are the EU.
The Treaty also stipulates the opportunity for more extensive participation of the parliaments of the Member States in EU decision-making, which gives you, dear Members of the Riigikogu, as the representatives of the people, greater opportunities to participate in the EU’s decision-making process. If, according to the existing system, every State can decide whether and how they will include their national parliament in the debate concerning EU draft legislation, then, according to the CTE, parliaments would always have the opportunity to express their position on EU draft legislation. If the parliaments of a third of the Member States find that a Commission legislative initiative does not conform to the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission must re-evaluate its proposal.
The Treaty also includes the Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would become legally binding if the Treaty enters into force. The Charter of Fundamental Rights reflects almost all the basic rights, which are also dealt with in Chapter II of the Estonian Constitution and in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the Charter, it has been clearly spelled out, which basic rights the Union’s institutions must abide by when putting into force Union legislation, and the Member States when implementing this legislation.
For us, the Treaty offers an essential change in the form of an opportunity for more extensive cooperation in the sphere of justice and home affairs. There is no doubt, that, specifically, the sphere of justice and home affairs needs further development so as to ensure security and the rule of law in an environment ruled by the four freedoms of an internal market. After all, the free movement of persons means that, along with all the good, much that is undesirable also moves more freely. Therefore, it is essential, that the Treaty specifies greater opportunities for police cooperation in civil matters and asylum policy.
One of the objectives of the CTE is to also increase the EU’s opportunities to function more noticeably in the field of external relations. The CTE brings all of the EU’s external relations – be it the CSFP, trade policy, or development assistance – within a single framework, and places it under clear EU values. The Treaty specifies, in a separate article, the principles that guide its relations with the outside world. Thus, the CTE significantly increases the importance of values in the EU’s external relations. The Treaty calls for the appointment of a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, merging the posts of the previous Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative of the CFSP, thereby bringing greater coherence and unity to the EU’s foreign policy. Giving the EU the status of a legal entity would enable the Union to conclude treaties with third states, and would make it easier to cooperate in the fight against new security threats. The objective of the European Union’s external service would be to help formulate a common policy, and to ensure the visibility and operability of its representations abroad. The Asian natural disaster, in 2004, demonstrated especially clearly, the importance of efficient consular services for EU citizens in crisis situations. This would also be especially essential for our citizens who might end up in an emergency in a state where Estonia does not have foreign representation.
The Treaty also makes necessary institutional changes so as to improve the functioning of the enlarged Union. Among other things, the number of members in the European Parliament would be increased to 750, which could mean that, in the future, Estonia might have seven seats instead of six. Also, an essential change would be giving to the European Council officially the status of an EU institution. The Presidency would be extended from six months to a year and a half, and instead of one presiding state, there would be a “team” consisting of three Member States. According to the CTE, the European Commission would, until 2014, consist of one citizen from each Member State, after which, the number of commissioners would be reduced to 2/3 of the number of Member States, whereas, the Council could change that number with a unanimous vote.
The CTE is a balanced document, in the creation of which, the most essential interests of all the Member States were taken into consideration. Without a doubt, every Member State – including Estonia – had spheres in which they would have preferred a somewhat different solution. But all kinds of cooperation require the readiness to make compromises, and things are no different in the European Union.
Just as when I was speaking with you a few weeks ago, I stress again the need for thoroughly debating the CTE at both the Estonian and the EU level. This is essential for comprehending the problems for the solution of which this document was formulated. We should all have a better understanding of the European Union as it is today and will be tomorrow. I hope that the Members of the Riigikogu will discuss these matters, even more than before, with the electorate, and will publicly voice their opinions in these matters.
Honourable Members of the Riigikogu,
Please allow me to express my sincerest hope, that the Riigikogu, as the representative of the Estonian people, will not remain a bystander in matters pertaining to the future of Europe, but will clearly express its opinion. Estonia would, thus, give a clear signal, that we wish to participate in the formation of Europe’s future. Our activity today would also help us in the making of future choices, and would be a cornerstone for the creating of our long-range vision of Europe.
The expressing of our opinion about the CTE would be a step, although a small one, towards ending the present ambiguity that has stalled the ratification process. The importance of this step is high both for our own European policy and for the European Union generally. It is possible, that our ratification of the Treaty will set an example for other EU Member States. This could give new life to the debate concerning the future of Europe, transforming a pause of reflection into an active period of debate, which will conclude with the making of concrete decisions.
We must realize that, presently, public opinion in the EU is not at all unified – debates and discussions are bringing forth the most varied of opinions. I therefore have serious doubts about the proposal that the drawing up of a new treaty, or another bout at the negotiating table, would help break the present ratification deadlock.
There is no doubt that the Constitutional Treaty for Europe is, at the moment, the best treaty available. It is a good treaty for Europe, and for Estonia. The ratification of the CTE would clearly show that we wish to proceed towards a stronger, more efficient, and more democratic European Union. Estonia would be declaring that we must increase the efficiency of common endeavours in spheres where it would benefit the security and welfare of the people living in the European Union. We would be demonstrating that we are prepared to think beyond everyday politics and to face the challenges confronting the EU.
© Estonian Foreign Ministry
- Islandi väljak 1
- 15049 Tallinn
- TEL (+372) 6 377 000
- General Info: vminfo@vm.ee
- Documents: post@vm.ee
- For consular and visa-related information:: konsul@vm.ee
