I am very happy to be here today to speak about the European Commission's recently published White Paper on the Future of Europe. I want to cover the White Paper from the following perspectives - why now, what is in it and what comes next?
We are facing a new political reality across the European Union. As members know, on Monday of this week, Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK formally began in Brussels. This is a key challenge for our continent as a whole. Brexit poses a high degree of risk for Ireland politically and economically. Elections in the Netherlands and France in recent months have seen the democratic majority decisively reject the far right offerings in favour of more centrist alternatives. However, despite these democratic triumphs, it is imperative that we respond to and engage with the significant minorities across the European Union which feel disenfranchised and alienated by the political system. There are a number of other elections due to take place across the EU in the months ahead - in Germany and Austria, for example - and similar challenges will have to be faced in each case, although all the evidence to date is that the far right challenge in these countries is waning. However, with 27 member states, we will always have an election in some country in the near future so there is always the risk. Even if the much-heralded great upsets that were predicted by the media did not materialise, it is important to deal with the factors that facilitated the rise in nationalistic, Eurosceptic, xenophobic and racist support
As members know, this year marks the 60th anniversary of the signature of the Treaties of Rome, which are the main building blocks of the European Union we know today. To mark this, on 1 March, President Jean-Claude Juncker first presented the European Commission's White Paper on the future of Europe to MEPs at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Making the announcement, the President said that it was "time for a united Europe of 27 to shape a vision for its future". That day, President Juncker encouraged all of us not only to look at what has been achieved in the 60 years since six European countries set up the European Communities but also to look at the reality of today's world and to think about how we want to move forward together. It is not prompted by or a reaction to Brexit, as many have suggested. It was under consideration and in preparation long before the UK referendum.
In recent years the global environment has seen some dramatic shifts. The EU's economy accounted for 26% of the world's GDP. By 2030, it is forecast to account for less than 20%. On the other hand, China's share of the world's GDP tripled between 2004 and 2015. While the euro is a currency with global weight, other players are increasing in strength. Europe will be the "oldest" - if I may used that word - region in the world by 2030 with an average age of 45, which will, of course, have an impact on social welfare systems, health systems, the labour force, etc. In 1900, Europe accounted for 25% of the global population. By 2060, it will account for 4%.
In respect of global stability, the EU continues to have considerable soft power but this is not enough as we are confronted with an increasingly uncertain and aggressive world. The US spends €500 billion on defence, a figure that is set to double by 2045, while the combined spend by the EU member states comes to €200 billion. This is compounded by the reality that the efficiency of EU spending is only 12% to 15% of that of the US. China's expenditure on defence is expected to increase more than fivefold by 2045. Global stability is also a function of development aid where the EU is already the largest donor in the world. It is also a function of the fight against climate change so it is not just about defence. However, defence is important.
Post-Brexit, it is clear that the EU must remain a source of resilience, stability and forward momentum for its 460 million citizens. The world around us is changing at speed, from globalisation to the rise of populism, racism and xenophobia, as I mentioned earlier, to the impact of new technologies on society and jobs to security concerns. While the increasingly digital nature of our society, for example, is having a positive impact, new technologies and digitisation also represent a challenge as traditional jobs are replaced. Robots have arrived in the workplace and they are now common there. Artificial intelligence is developing rapidly. We have to ensure that technological developments benefit society at large and not just the few.
The recent successive security threats throughout the EU have focused attention on borders and on the need for anti-terrorism co-operation. They have also focused attention on the flows of refugees crossing the EU's borders. The EU must continue to work collectively to reduce the negative threats we face while upholding our shared principles and values. Climate change represents another serious risk to our habitats and societies; ultimately, to the future survival of the planet; and in the immediate term, as a driver of migration. The EU will continue to be the driving force behind global action to deal with climate change - even more so now in view of President Trump's position regarding the Paris Agreement.
The challenges we face are many and it is clear that the EU cannot now afford a period of paralysis as it adapts to these new realities. We have two options. Either we let ourselves be swept along by global trends, or we look at them through the prism of opportunity and set about embracing and shaping them.
Last month, the Juncker Commission reached the mid-way point in its five-year mandate. Some 70% of the initiatives President Juncker pledged before taking office have already been launched, including in the areas of an energy union, a security union, the digital Single Market, the capital markets union, and of course additional initiatives under the umbrella of the economic and monetary union. This Commission's clear objective from the outset was to improve the lives of EU citizens and to boost jobs and economic growth. So far, the Commission has committed €138 billion in new investment supporting more than 130,000 new jobs under the Juncker investment plan, formally the European Fund for Strategic Investments, EFSI. This is in addition to all the other job creating funds such as structural funds, the CAP, research expenditure, etc. Over 9 million young people are now in work, education or training because of the youth guarantee. Economic reform and recovery has been prioritised. The eurozone has now experienced 15 successive quarters of economic growth and the level of employment is higher than it was before the economic crisis, which one might find hard to believe considering the commentary on the poor state of the eurozone and EU economy. Some 15 successive quarters of growth is not to be sneezed at. The Paris climate agreement has been negotiated, signed and ratified, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020. A European border and coast guard has been established and mobilised. More than €15 billion has been made available to deal with the refugee crisis, to tackle root causes, save lives, manage our borders and provide humanitarian support. The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, has been agreed. These are only examples of major decisions that have been brought forward by the Commission on top of all its regular, routine work.
There is also the question of trust and legitimacy. For too long, there has been a gap between what people expect of the EU and what the EU is able to deliver. This vacuum is oxygen to populists and those bent on discrediting the EU and member state governments. From the beginning of its mandate, this Commission pledged to focus on where it can deliver the most tangible results and to act only where effective EU action will make a concrete difference. We also need to ensure that all member states make good on their commitments, in a nutshell that they do what they signed up to do. That does not always happen. British citizens are about to pay a high price for the policy of blaming Brussels and disowning commonly agreed decisions. We need to make sure that we all take responsibility for our decisions, own them and communicate the reasons behind them. Only then will trust in the EU and in member state governments improve again. Brexit is not happening because there was a great campaign to get out but because 30 years of eurosceptical misinformation went unchallenged by the pro-EU camp in the UK. Other countries should learn from this experience.
Traditionally, attitudes towards the EU have been positive in Ireland. The most recent Eurobarometer poll revealed that 77% of people in Ireland were optimistic about the future of the EU, the highest percentage across the EU. What is more, Irish respondents, at 55%, were the most likely to have a positive image of the EU. This view is reinforced by the Europe Day poll published in Ireland on 9 May, which showed that 88% of all adults asked agreed that Ireland should remain a part of the EU; 87% agreed that Ireland has benefitted from the EU; and the percentage of those who believed Ireland should leave the EU continues to decrease year on year and now stands at 16%. This positive reaction should, however, never be taken for granted. The EU must be constantly defended.
In respect of the White Paper, the issue is how do we put our best foot forward as an EU of 27 member states. The European Commission's White Paper on the future of the EU sets out five possible futures for the EU. In essence, it asks what kind of EU we want to have in 2025 and beyond. These scenarios are not intended to be a prescriptive or an exhaustive list. They outline a series of different paths the EU could follow, but are solely intended to get the debate out of the starting blocks. In reality, the final scenario might not be among the five proposed here.
Scenario 1 is that the EU carries on as it is doing and focuses on delivering its existing agenda of positive reform. It is essentially business as usual. Given the problems we have had, business as usual might be the best route. Scenario 2 is that the EU returns to what may be called "the Single Market and nothing but the Single Market" as its focus. I do not think there would be a majority in favour of having the EU purely as a trading bloc, although it certainly would have been the British preference, were they staying in. Most countries see the EU as being much more than that.
Scenario 3 is that those who want to do more in certain areas move forward together, for example in defence and so on. There has been some commentary and some concern expressed in Ireland and elsewhere about some countries moving forward and leaving the others behind. In reality, this is enhanced co-operation, which we have today. Ireland is not in Schengen. A number of EU countries are not in the eurozone. It is not much different from what we have today. However, it is not something the European Commission would favour. We would much prefer that everyone moves in the same direction at the same pace.
Scenario 4 is that the EU focuses on a smaller number of policy areas and acts more efficiently in these areas, in other words, the EU's resources are focused on a smaller number of areas. The difficulty would be getting agreement among 28 member states as to what should be the key areas and where funding should be dropped. It is not without its difficulties. Scenario 5 is doing much more together, sharing more decision-making and resources across a wider range of areas. Most pro-Europeans would favour this option. However, although this is only my personal feeling, I would imagine that if it is too difficult to get agreement among 28 to move forward at the same pace, it is inevitable that many countries are not going to wait around for the slowest wagon in the convoy. It will end up going back to scenario 3 whereby a number of countries move forward and the others join later.
It is now up to all of us to make the choices which will determine what the EU looks like in 2025. Some commentators and politicians have already been vocal on what scenario they would choose. Interestingly, at a recent dialogue with Commissioner Andriukaitis in Dublin, 63% of participants voted in favour of scenario 5, doing more together or greater integration. This is only the beginning of the process, however. It is clear from successive polls in recent months that Irish people, in general, want to remain in the EU. The question is what kind of EU do Irish people want to remain in for the future.
In terms of the next steps, having published the White Paper to kick off the discussion, the Commission is now in listening mode. In addition to the White Paper itself, the Commission committed on 1 March to publish five reflection papers to look in more detail at the future of the EU's work in five key policy areas, namely, strengthening the social dimension of Europe, published on 26 April; harnessing globalisation, published on 10 May; deepening the economic and monetary union, published on 31 May; the future of Europe's defence, published on 7 June; and the future of European Union finances, to be published soon, possibly on 28 June. These papers are intended as contributions to the debate. In President Juncker's September 2017 state of the European Union speech, he will elaborate on these ideas, but it will only be in December 2017, at the European Council meeting of the EU's heads of state and government, that the first conclusions will hopefully be drawn. The idea is that these first conclusions will form part of the debate leading up to the next European Parliament elections in 2019 and the formation of the next European Commission.
Regarding discussion of the White Paper in Ireland, the European Commission's representation here will ensure a wide range of opportunities to engage with this debate between now and the summer of 2019. As things stand, a number of visiting European Commissioners have committed to engaging with Irish people across the country on these issues in what we call citizens' dialogues. During the past month alone, Commissioners Andriukaitis and Hogan addressed separate events in Dublin and Kilkenny and we are working on events in Donegal next month with First Vice-President Timmermans and Commissioner King in the context of the MacGill Summer School. We will of course continue to engage closely with the joint Oireachtas committee and the Government during this process.
However, I see our role as being complementary to the efforts made by others and not the other way around. The primary responsibility for consultation must rest with the elected representatives in Ireland whether they are at local, regional, national or EU level, and also NGOs and sectoral organisations. The future shape of Europe has a big bearing on the citizens, many of whom are represented by NGOs, be they sectoral, economic or non-economic. These organisations should consider the subject as well and put forward their views.
While my office is happy to represent and work closely with anybody here in Ireland, it is the Irish Government that must decide what direction the future of Europe should take. Therefore, it is elected representatives who must lead the discussion here.
I thank the Chairman, ladies and gentlemen for their attention. My colleagues and I are happy to listen to any comments.
