Speech by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the occasion of a Joint Meeting between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament on “Building One Europe”

Strasbourg, 25 September 2003

Woody Allen once described his views on life with a story about two ladies in a retirement home. "The food is awful here,” said the first. "Yes," responded the other, "and the servings are too small".

I believe this little story is also a fitting illustration of the public view of Europe. It is something we love to hate, but – whether we admit it or not – we can’t live without it.

Every single mishap in the works of the European Union is taken as heralding its imminent demise.

The Council of Europe, for its part, is constantly confronted with prejudiced questioning of its relevance, be it by the media or some governmental officials, usually those with the least knowledge of what the Council is and what it does.

Yet citizens of Europe, regardless of the enthusiasm with which they embrace - or not - the European idea, live and breath Europe, every day, in almost every aspect of their lives, often without even being aware of doing so.

It would be quite wrong, however, to blame ignorance alone for Europe’s poor popularity rating. Lack of clarity, for example, is a charge that cannot be easily dismissed. Our citizens will not support our actions if they are not clear about what we do on their behalf.

Firstly, is there such a thing as “One Europe”, or are there rather several Europes? New Europe, old Europe, wider Europe, narrower Europe, a Europe of the fifteen, the twenty-five, or forty-five, Europe à la carte and Europe plat du jour?

In fact, what is Europe? Most people automatically think of the European Union. Others - rather fewer, alas - think of the Council of Europe. But the truth is, neither Brussels nor Strasbourg have an exclusive claim to Europe. This is because Europe is not a body, or an institution, or a mechanism. It is an idea, a vision of a peaceful and prosperous continent, based on ever-closer co-operation between all its peoples, and governed by a common set of values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Neither the EU nor the Council of Europe are the purpose in themselves, they are both means to achieve - in substantially different but complementary ways - the vision which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War and which was described - in almost identical terms - in the Statute of the Council of Europe and the Treaty of Rome.

The title of our joint meeting reflects Europe as an idea, not as an institution or mechanism. The consequences of such thinking are not merely theoretical. They determine our respective, but also mutual responsibilities.

Even more importantly, Europe, as an idea, not as a bureaucratic apparatus, is still able to inspire and motivate our citizens, from the Azores to Azerbaijan. If we, as representatives of the institutional Europe, want to gain back their support, we should perhaps remind them, and ourselves, that Europe is also about values, not only value added tax.

In a very short time, the EU will enlarge to twenty-five member countries and endow itself with a constitution. Both these developments will have far-reaching consequences, felt beyond the enlarged EU borders. These consequences include the two sub-themes of the today’s meeting: relations between the Council of Europe and the EU, and freedom of movement, migration and border control in Europe.

The first issue has been the object of the Assembly’s interest for some time. Three recent reports, and particularly the most recent - presented by Mr Pangalos in January this year - set out our position, which calls on the European Union and its member states to do three things.

Firstly, to incorporate both the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights into the constitutional treaty, so as to give them binding legal force.

Secondly, to include in the future constitutional treaty a clause on the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Thirdly, to start negotiations with the Council of Europe and its member states without delay so as to prepare the legal instruments needed for this accession.

On the occasion of this debate, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Walter Schwimmer presented a proposal which built on the Assembly’s position and called for the EU to become an associate partner of the Council of Europe, which would allow it to take part in political, not only legal deliberations and decisions concerning the European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant Council of Europe instruments, such as the European Social Charter and the European Cultural Convention.

For the time being, our priorities should be, on the one hand, to ask the EU governments to proceed with the accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, as stipulated in the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and, on the other hand, to call on the Council of Europe member states to speed up their preparations for the Organisation’s Third Summit, which should create the legal conditions to allow for the European Union’s associate partnership in the Council of Europe.

The EU’s expansion to twenty-five countries will also have a profound impact on the freedom of movement, migration and border control, which is the second sub-theme of our meeting. Also, with the new Constitution, a number of questions directly or indirectly related to freedom of movement and migration will come under EU competence and will no longer be decided in an intergovernmental framework. There are two aspects of this matter which are of particular interest to the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe.

Our first concern is about respect for human rights and human dignity. It is necessary to manage migration flows across our borders - and, in doing so, it is sometimes inevitable that the freedom of movement of some who wish to visit, or settle, in our countries will be restricted. But it is also necessary to conduct our migration policies in an intelligent and humane manner, with full respect for the dignity and the rights of all persons involved, and in full compliance with international law. This, regrettably, is not always the case. There are incidents of racial intolerance, and I would like to use this opportunity to stress the important role of political parties in the fight against such behaviour. President Cox and myself will sign a declaration in support of a 1998 “Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist-Society”, which calls on political parties in all Council of Europe countries to sign and abide by this important document.

Secondly, the Assembly also looks at changes in the composition and internal structure of the EU which will affect freedom of movement between Council of Europe member states.

For some, there will be clear gains. With accession to the EU, the citizens of the ten new member states will have much greater possibilities to travel but also to settle and work in other European Union member states.

Others will see their freedom of movement decrease. In some cases, the introduction of EU rules on border controls and migration will have a negative effect on movement, exchange, and co-operation across borders between new members and their neighbours which are not in the EU. There will be a human and economic cost and there may be political repercussions.

No one questions the European Union’s right to secure its external borders, but we should bear in mind that there are problems and that it is in everyone’s interest to find proper solutions.

In conclusion, I should like to return to the title of our meeting. When it comes to the most fundamental principles of our societies - freedom, democracy, human rights, human dignity, tolerance, justice, the rule of law - there cannot be more than One Europe. We cannot allow à la carte values, where authorities, national or others, are allowed to pick and choose the norms of decent conduct which suit them.

We share the responsibility to prevent this from happening. A clearer, more concrete and legally sound relation between Europe’s two foremost bodies, based on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, would represent a giant step forward. It would bring about a milestone achievement in the history of Europe, in line with the vision of its founding fathers.

The “One Europe” that we are building together is a Europe of values. This is what our citizens want, and what we must deliver: a Europe of real politics, not realpolitik, leading to a better European Union and a better Council of Europe. And when it is built, it will be not just “One Europe”, it will also be a better Europe.