Ambassador's Corner

WEEKLY MESSAGE FROM AMBASSADOR JOHN BRUTON

July 14, 2009

A trip home - from Bath to Ballintubber

We were back at home for the past fortnight on a family holiday.

Finola and I attended the graduation ceremony of our daughter, Juliana, from the University of Bath in the magnificent Bath Abbey [left] whose present building dates from 1499. Bath is a great city to visit and one of the many attractions of England's West country.

Along with the other graduates, Juliana was presented with her parchment by the Chancellor of the University, Lord Christopher Tugendhat [below, right], who was formerly a Vice President of the European Commission.

We were also in another Abbey, even older than Bath because it dates from 1216, namely Ballintubber Abbey in County Mayo, for a family wedding. The Abbey was founded by the King of Connacht, Cathal O'Conor. It was burned down in 1653, but was restored in the nineteenth century with help from people of Irish descent all over the world.

Updating the European Union Treaty - An important Irish decision

Last week was an important one for the future of the European Union. The Irish Government published a well-written and comprehensive White Paper explaining in simple language the content of the Lisbon Treaty. The paper explains the nature of the legal guarantees the Irish government negotiated to allay fears that were raised during the previous campaign. The Government also announced its decision to have a referendum on the 2nd of October.

The new referendum will allow the Irish electorate to look again at their decision of June 2008 to reject the Lisbon Treaty. Some may argue that Irish voters should not be asked to look again at a decision they already made in a referendum. But the truth of the matter is that every one of us looks again at decisions we have made in the past and, frequently with the benefit of greater knowledge and reflection, we decide to make a different decision. If this is alright for us as individuals, surely it is alright for us as electorates.

For me, one of the most significant statements in the White Paper was that "as a small state, Ireland values a rule-based system of international relations." It also said that Ireland's full participation in the EU is a means of "maximizing our real sovereignty."

These two statements go to the heart of the issue. They explain why more and more countries, especially smaller ones, want to join the European Union. They also explain why, with an enlarged membership of 27 or more states, the EU needs the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty to make it effective.

In the 21st century world, no nation is an island. No matter how big it is, a modern nation is buffeted by global storms. Global financial collapses, global spread of diseases, global climate impacts and global criminal conspiracies are too big for even the biggest countries to handle on their own. Even a country as big as the United States needs "a rule-based system of international relations," in the concise words of the Irish White Paper.
 
Democratizing globalization

But how are these international rules to be made? 

The European Union provides the only instrument in the entire world whereby international rules can be negotiated and agreed democratically, as well as diplomatically. The European Union is the only multi-state institution in the world that has a directly and democratically elected Parliament, working alongside the ministers and the diplomats, who in all other international organizations are the only ones making the rules. The European Union is the world's only multinational democracy.

If the Irish people, along with the other 26 EU Member States, ratify the Lisbon Treaty they will be taking a major step forward for European democracy. They will expand the number of subjects on which their democratically-elected MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] will be making decisions, and they will create an entirely new mechanism to allow each of the 27 national parliaments to look at proposed EU legislation before it even goes to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers for debate.

The Lisbon Treaty will thus open up the process of EU law-making to a level of potential public participation and scrutiny far beyond that applying to law-making in the sovereign Member States of the European Union.

Maximizing sovereignty

Under the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland and other EU States will maximize their real sovereignty because, through the European Union, they will gain leverage over a range of global issues on which they would have much less influence as countries acting on their own.

Why is it important that Europe be able to act in a united way in the 21st century?

In 1900 the countries of the present European Union produced around 40% of the world's wealth and had a quarter of the world's population. In 2009, those same countries have only 7% of the world's population and produce 30% of the world's wealth and, if current trends continue, Europe's weight in the world will be proportionately even less by 2050. So if Europeans want to punch above their weight, they must coordinate their efforts.

If the countries of the EU, including Ireland, are to influence the rest of the world on the things that are important to them, they will be much more likely to succeed if they act together as a Union, than if they pursue 27 different national policies.

With its reduced global weight, Europe cannot afford the luxury of division. The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Union the means of being united on global issues. It does not guarantee they will be united, but it gives them the means of being so. It does so by creating new institutions like the President of the European Council, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and a new External Action Service. These institutions will be able to forge common positions that balance the interests of all members. Of course, big foreign policy decisions will still need to be taken by unanimity, and unanimity among 27 countries is not inevitable. But the Lisbon Treaty will make it easier to achieve.

Fighting cross-border crime

I was a member of the Convention which drafted the Constitutional Treaty, which provides most of the content of the present Lisbon Treaty. The aspects of the Lisbon Treaty in which I was most involved were those that equip the European Union to fight against cross-border crimes, like trafficking in women and children, money laundering, trafficking in arms, counterfeiting and terrorism. These are crimes that usually have an inbuilt international or cross-border character.

For example, there have been a number of appalling gun crimes in Ireland in recent weeks. One does not have to reflect very long on these crimes to see that almost all of them have a cross-border character. The guns used have been imported from another country. The drugs, for which the crime has often been committed to pay, have also been imported from another country. And, frequently, the proceeds of the crime will be lodged or laundered in another country.

The modern crime problem is simply too big for one country to overcome on its own, as can be seen by the current experience of Mexico and the United States. The old fashioned ways of dealing with cross-border crimes through bilateral one-off case-by-case deals between police forces just makes life too easy for fast-moving modern criminals.

The Lisbon Treaty will put that right for Europe. It will allow for the freezing of terrorist assets, for the collection of evidence in other countries and for the protection of the rights of people who may become victims of a crime while on holiday in another country. It will also allow the European Union to cooperate better with the United States in combating transatlantic crime and terrorism.

Crime is only one example. The Lisbon Treaty will also help to deal with energy shortages and cross-border health threats in ways that are not possible under the existing EU Treaties. Article 194 will provide for solidarity between EU States when energy shortages or supply interruptions occur.

There are thus very strong practical reasons for the Irish people to decide to vote "Yes" this time.

Putting Lisbon into practice

The Lisbon Treaty will also raise a number of new political and administrative challenges.

The European Commission [current members at right] will now contain a member from each State. This will, sooner or later, will mean a Commission of 30 or more members. Maintaining a collegial atmosphere and genuinely collective decision-making in a body of that size will call for special skills and exceptional application by the President of the Commission and the Vice Presidents of the Commission who assist him or her.

The new High Representative of the Union for Foreign and Security Policy ("Foreign Minister") will have a very busy life. Not only will the High Representative be responsible for relations with all the other countries of the world, but will have to manage the establishment of a new External Action Service, and manage EU Delegations around the world. In addition, the High Representative will chair all the meetings of EU Foreign Ministers, and attend the weekly meetings of the European Commission of which he/she will be a full member. These responsibilities will have to be reconciled with the requirement of travelling the globe to meet Foreign Ministers of other countries and attend international conferences.

This heavy workload of the "Foreign Minister" will make another new office to be created by the Lisbon Treaty vitally important. That is the rôle of the new full-time President of the European Council. The full-time President of the European Council will prepare the agenda for, and chair, the quarterly meetings of the EU Heads of State and Government. The European Council sets the overall direction for the Union. The President of the Council will take that rôle over from individual Heads of Government of Member States who currently do the job on a six-monthly rotating basis.

I believe the President of the Council will also have to take on a rôle in coordinating the work of the sectoral formations of the Council of Ministers (e.g. the Agriculture Council, Internal Market Council, etc.). These sectoral councils will be chaired over an eighteen-month cycle on a rotating basis by Ministers drawn from the 27 Member States. Making sure that the work of these sectoral councils is coordinated with the work of the Foreign Affairs Council and the Commission will be a challenge.

The personal chemistry between the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council and the "Foreign Minister" will be vital.

The Healthcare Debate

The healthcare debate in the United States is leading to many references to the "European healthcare model," which is frequently equated with "rationing" of healthcare.

One example of this was in an article I noticed in the Washington Examiner, which seemed to suggest that someone of 60 years of age might be denied a hip replacement in Europe because he was too old and the operation was too expensive.

I have to say I know of no European country where people would be denied a hip replacement simply because they were too old - at 60 or at any other age. My late mother had a hip replacement in her 80's. It all depends on one's capacity to withstand the trauma of the anaesthetic and the surgery, not on age or the expense of the operation.

In truth, there is no one European healthcare model or system, but 27 different systems in 27 different states. Some of those systems have more resources than others because some European countries can afford more than others can.

Some form of limitation on expenditure is inevitable in all healthcare systems. "Rationing" can come about if the part of the cost an insured person has to contribute to the cost of a procedure (a "copay") is set at a level the person cannot afford. Or it can also occur if a doctor or a hospital decides that the procedure is too expensive relative to the possible health gain. The former happens in the United States, the latter is more common in European systems. Both systems contain an element of "rationing."

The OECD will publish in November a major report comparing the healthcare system of member states of the OECD. It has published some preliminary comparisons, which are helpful and relevant to the healthcare debate now taking place in the United States.

In 2007, the United States spent 16% of its GDP or $7,290 per person on healthcare. France spent 11% of its GDP or $3,601 per person. Sweden spends 9.1% of its GDP or $3,323 per person, and Ireland spent 7.6% of its GDP or $3,424 per person. In other words, the European countries spent about half as much per head on healthcare. Yet, although they spend much less, life expectancy is 81 in Sweden and France, and 79.7 years in Ireland as against 78.1 years in the United States, which spends much more.

Of course, European healthcare systems are not perfect. In all systems there is a conflict between almost unlimited spending opportunities and limited financial means of governments or of insured or uninsured patients.

Please send me your comments about this or any of my weekly messages or other EU matters. I look forward to hearing from you!

 

For more information please click: Ambassador Bruton's Website