..Futuribile |
Pagina iniziale | Europa apparente | Europa reale | Europa futuribile | Approfondimenti | Segnalibri | Mappa sito |
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In fifty years, Europe has been come into being. It lives in
peace, democracy
prevails, our way of life appeals.
Just recently the European Union has made further progress.
Growth has resumed.
Unemployment is ebbing. Less than eight months from now, the euro
will be a
concrete reality for 300m European citizens. A European defence
is being
established. The Union is reasserting its social dimension. It is
acquiring the
instruments needed to protect health and the environment. The
French government
is proud of having contributed to these changes.
Yet peoples and some policy-makers are feeling a certain
disenchantment and
perplexity. And it is true that the future of Europe raises
legitimate
questions. Does Europe not run the risk of falling apart if it
enlarges to the
borders of the continent? How can Europe open up to globalisation
without
diluting its identity? To reform its institutions, should it
reduce the role of
Nation States? How can the citizens of Europe be given a sense of
ownership and
involvement in Europe?
Attentive to these questions, Heads of State and Government
meeting in Nice
last year decided to undertake an in-depth review of the future
of an enlarged
Union. European citizens are called on to take part in it. We
have decided to
get this debate under way in France. My remarks this morning are
a part of that
process. This is my contribution, as a policy-maker, to the
discussion now
beginning.
I am French. I feel European. I want a Europe which asserts its
identity, is
more responsive to the goals of its peoples and plays an
exemplary role in the
world.
This is why the debate must be about more than institutions and
institutional
reform. Europe is first and foremost a political undertaking, it
is "content"
first and "framework" only secondarily. Europe is made
up not merely of
regulations, directives and disputes. It is first and foremost a
work of the
mind, a societal model, a world view. The European idea as part
of reality -
that is what counts, as far as I am concerned. The Europe that I
love, that I
and countless others want to achieve, has a societal program (I),
a world view
(II), and a political architecture (III).
I. Europe must proclaim a societal program.
Up until recently, the primary focus of the European endeavour
was on setting
up the economic and monetary Union. That brought us real benefits.
But now we
must broaden our perspective if we want Europe to be more than
just one more
market in a sea of globalisation. Europe is, after all, more than
a market. It
bears within it a societal model, the result of its history,
which is taking
shape in the ever closer ties being forged among European peoples.
There is
such a thing as a European "art de vivre", a specific
way of doing things, of
defending freedoms, of fighting inequality and discrimination, of
organising
and handling labour relations, of ensuring access to education
and health care,
a European pace. Each of our countries has its own traditions and
rules but
together these make up a common whole.
This original societal model should now be enshrined in the
treaties and given
practical expression in our policies. The justification for
Europe is its
difference. Let us remember that Europe is a civilisation, that
is at one and
the same time a territory, a shared history, a unified economy, a
human society
and a variety of cultures which together form one culture.
1. This civilisation is based on a community of values.
Foremost among them are democracy and human rights. The "Founding
Fathers"
called for a political Europe, and then built it, in order to
deliver our
continent from the empire-building and murderous totalitarianism
which bloodied
Europe in the 20th century. Thanks to them, Europe is now a land
of peace.
Yesterday's enemies have reconciled. Disunity has given way to
the quest for
ever greater union. Of all the regions in the world, it is in
Europe that the
rule of law is best implemented. Europe is the only political
entity in which
the death penalty no longer exists. It is the land where respect
for the human
person has reached its pinnacle. Europe is called upon to make
this message
heard more broadly.
Europe refuses to divorce economic prosperity from social
progress. This
refusal enabled it to recover from the wars that had left it in
ruins. Despite
the remaining inequalities, it has today achieved a very high
level of economic
development. Social rights have been won - social welfare rights,
trade union
rights, the right to a free education.
To proclaim these values we provided the Union with a Charter of
Fundamental
Rights. The full set of principles which underpin European
civilisation are
enshrined in the Charter - the dignity and integrity of the human
person,
freedoms and solidarity, equality, citizenship and justice, as
well as new
rights such as those which relate to the preservation of our
natural heritage.
This Charter deserves to be considered the keystone of the
European edifice. I
hope it will be an integral part of the pact uniting the nations
of Europe and
constituting a community of destiny among Europeans.
2. This community of destiny should better inspire our common
policies
Europe needs more economic solidarity. The single currency has
now given us a
much-appreciated stability. For the last two years the euro has
fulfilled its
purpose as a common "shield" against international
financial crises and
competitive devaluations. To balance the structure of the Union,
we now need
economic government of the euro zone. Co-ordination of economic
policies must
be considerably enhanced. I propose that each member State
consult its
counterparts and give careful consideration to their
recommendations before
taking decisions which have major impact on the zone as a whole.
Let us set up
a short-term economic action fund, to which each State would be
eligible, to
support any member country suffering from the effects of world
economic
turbulence. We must finally take action to stop any behaviour
detrimental to
the general European interest. Combating "tax dumping"
is one immediate
priority; it is not acceptable for certain member States to
practice unfair tax
compe
tition in order to attract international investment and offshore
headquarters
of European groups. Ultimately, the corporate tax system as a
whole will have
to be harmonised.
Economic cohesion must serve social solidarity. This is what
citizens are
calling for. Europe cannot be merely a free trade zone. For the
last four years
the French government has fought to give a new direction to the
construction of
Europe, focusing it more on growth and employment. Major strides
were made with
the adoption of the European Social Agenda. These goals must
produce concrete
results for all categories of workers. Working conditions must be
harmonised
upwards. We must reduce job insecurity and fight discrimination.
Let us set the
stage for a social dialogue with the trade unions at European
level. A genuine
body of European social law, establishing ambitious common
standards, must be
put in place and there must be a special focus on the provision
of information
to employees and their involvement in the life of companies, as
well as on
layoffs, the struggle against job insecurity and wage policies.
We must aim for
a European social treaty.
Similarly, to guarantee equality of citizens, solidarity among
them and the
general interest, Europeans need strong and efficient public
services. I am in
favour of a European Directive defining the legal framework which
can
consolidate, under State responsibility, the role played by
public services in
Europe.
To promote employment, Europe must have strong industrial goals.
Major
achievements are possible with European integration - in the past,
Ariane and
Airbus; today, EADS in civil aircraft and, in the military sphere,
the heavy
transport aircraft project. These partnerships are important for
our
industries. They offer the resources needed for investment, lend
industry the
critical size needed on the world market and make it possible to
avoid
exclusive predominance, in crucial sectors, of the United States.
In the same spirit, Europe must assert itself as the continent of
science and
innovation. Knowledge is part of the European identity. But
fragmentation of
European research into insufficiently co-ordinated national
endeavours reduces
its efficiency. A true European Research Area must be set up on
an urgent basis
in such important fields as health and the environment, pooling
its efforts as
it did in space with the European Space Agency.
3. The unity of Europe requires stronger rights and protections
for all
Europeans.
We must build a Common Law Area, for which the Charter can serve
as a
reference. Under certain circumstances, it should be possible for
the citizen
to go directly to the European Court of Justice. We must
harmonise the various
national substantive and procedural rules. To start with,
effective mutual
recognition of court rulings and the creation of a court of
arbitration to
handle conflicts of national law would constitute major strides
forward. I am
thinking in particular of the thorny issue of divorce cases
involving people of
two different nationalities.
One of the fundamental rights of the citizen is security. Europe
must help to
guarantee it.
This involves, first, fighting crime. Because organised crime
recognises no
borders - a particularly obvious fact when it comes to money
laundering, drug
trafficking and all contemporary forms of trafficking in human
beings - it
should be fought at European level. A number of our partners have
proposed the
creation of an integrated European police force. I for my part
support the
idea. I propose the establishment of an operational criminal
police force
centred on Europol. Let us entrust to a specific police force the
task of
protecting the external borders of the Union and its
international airports.
The security of Europeans also requires the establishment of a
true European
Judicial Area based on enhanced co-operation among judges and
ongoing
harmonisation of criminal law in member States, which could
ultimately lead to
the creation of a European public prosecutor's office. It would
be in charge of
co-ordinating prosecution and government legal action at European
level and
would in particular facilitate the execution of letters rogatory
throughout the
Union.
Food safety is another requirement. Recent crises, particularly
the "mad cow"
crisis, have demonstrated the threat to consumers of excessively
productivist
policies. We must collectively learn one urgent lesson: the
citizen is also a
consumer who must be better protected. Let us introduce in the
Union the
concept of the European consumer, based on the precautionary
principle, full
disclosure of information and traceability of products "from
the pitchfork to
the fork". I also propose, in the field of health care, the
creation of a
public health monitoring and early warning system to enable the
authorities to
respond immediately to a crisis when it starts.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In a world now globalised, our Europe cannot sit back as an
island of relative
prosperity and stability. To selfishly turn inward would be to
fall victim to
illusion and denial. Europe offers a model, a model open to the
world and
particularly to the Mediterranean and its rim. Europe is called
upon to point
globalisation in the direction of law and justice.
II. Europe must help chart the course for the world
I want a strong Europe which shoulders its full responsibility in
the
redefinition of the world order and which acquires the means to
convey its
message of peace, solidarity and pluralism.
1. On behalf of this pluralism, Europe must foster cultural
diversity.
One of the most valuable parts of mankind's heritage is its
diversity of
cultures. And that today is under threat. The market drives
uniformisation of
consumption patterns and concentration of cultural industries. Of
course,
certain forms of expression - I am thinking here especially of
film - have
taken on an industrial dimension. But we must protect ourselves,
collectively,
from the threat of uniformity and the invasion of cultural
products from a
single source. This is a crucial issue for civilisation. This
involves a
struggle for European cultures of course, but also for all other
cultures. A
struggle waged by Europe at the OECD, when Europe denounces the
Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, and within the World Trade Organisation,
when Europe
defends the specificity of cultural creative work and cultural
works. Europe
must continue to act along these lines.
Europe is conscious of this issue because it harbors a great
diversity of
cultures. We are the heirs to these cultures in all their facets
- religion,
philosophy, literature, music and the visual arts - and all their
expressions.
They are our common heritage. For us as Europeans, culture is not,
therefore,
merchandise. It is first and foremost a part of our identity.
To sustain this identity, Europe must enable everyone to share
this heritage.
We must do more to foster mobility of students, artists and
scientists. Ten
years from now it should be possible for young Europeans to do
part of their
studies in a Union country different from their own. Let us make
the teaching
of at least two European languages from a very early age the rule.
Everything
must be done - especially in schools - to give our children an
awareness of the
fact that their national heritage is part of an even broader
European heritage.
Because culture is a living thing, it is incumbent on Europe to
foster creative
work. There must be a common policy specifically designed for
culture and not
dominated by the rules of competition and the internal market. In
this spirit I
propose the establishment, at European level, of procedures to
support creative
film, audio-visual and information technology work and European
studios. At a
time when digital bouquets are being introduced in all of our
countries, Europe
should have its own television channel patterned on the
achievements of Arte.
To my mind, Europe's commitment to cultural diversity exemplifies
our vision of
an open international society committed to solidarity.
2. Taking this approach, Europe is called upon to defend peace
and freedom in
the world.
In the face of the temptation to engage in unilateralism - that
is, the might
is right approach, or excessively simple viewpoints - Europe must
be a factor
of equilibrium in international relations. It does not want to be
a dominant
power but it can use its power to serve its values.
Europe can make its voice heard thanks to a common foreign policy.
Let us
deepen our "common strategies" in areas of the world
where our interests are at
stake. Let us strengthen the role of the High Representative for
the CFSP. Let
us see to it that the diplomacy of each of our nations is
consistent with the
definition of a policy common to us all. Let us enhance the
influence,
throughout the world, of an engaged and active Europe. Unified
external
representation of the euro zone by an elected chairman of the
Eurogroup will
help meet that goal. Let us introduce it as soon as possible.
Additionally, the
merger of the European consular networks abroad will enable
"European Centres"
to serve European expatriates all over the world. These centres
will give them
a heightened sense of European citizenship.
To ensure security and also contribute to peacekeeping in the
world, Europe
needs a common defence. Its foundations have been laid. Thanks to
recent
decisions taken during the French Presidency of the Union, Europe
is now
acquiring a rapid reaction force within a permanent political and
military
institutional structure. The Union now needs a comprehensive
doctrine on
intervention and use of this force. The priority today is to
strengthen a
conflict prevention policy as the means of ensuring long-term
security. At the
same time, Europe must define its long-term defence strategy in
line with its
own interests and in compliance with its alliances. This means,
in particular,
that it must have a consistent position on the controversial
missile shield
initiative taken by the United States.
Beyond diplomatic and security issues, the economy and the
trading system must
be organised in a more equitable, more efficient manner.
3. Europe must help devise the regulation which the world needs.
To prevent private-sector interests from stifling the general
interest, to
prevent short-term profit-seeking from ignoring social justice
and damaging the
environment, "rules of the game" must be defined. The
European Union can play a
major role in devising regulations and act to foster three
priorities.
The world economy must be given a stable framework. Recent
economic and
financial crises have shown that public and private sector rules
are needed to
make the market economy work properly. Over the last three years,
much has been
accomplished based on lessons learned from these crises, but much
also remains
to be done, especially in the field of international financial
regulation. Let
us strengthen the role of the Bretton Woods institutions in
managing and
preventing crises. Let us make them more open and politically
accountable. As
the largest shareholder in these institutions, the European Union
must make its
voice heard. Let us think about how the countries of the euro
zone can
co-ordinate or even unify their representation in these
institutions. Let us
fight financial crime and unfair tax competition; the hesitation
of the new
American administration should not be a reason to call into
question the work
of the international financial action task force and the OECD.
Europe
will continue to assert its positions in favour of reforming the
international
financial architecture.
We want fair trade. Europe fought for the creation of the WTO
because that
organisation handles trade disputes with objective procedures and
thus protects
us from unilalteralism. Regulation fosters the expansion of
international
trade. Europe should make a case within the WTO for a trade
policy which
establishes clear-cut limits. Trade liberalisation ought not to
undermine
public services, cultural diversity, social progress or food
security. Europe
must increase its solidarity toward developing countries to
achieve a reduction
in poverty. The South needs Europe. Europe will fight to help
these countries
take their rightful place in world trade. It will contribute to
lightening the
burden of debt which constitutes the main obstacle to their
development.
The only development is sustainable development. The planet is
under threat. We
are accountable to future generations. Europe, historically an
industrial
heartland, a region having a high population density and poorly
endowed with
raw materials, has learned from the two oil shocks that the Earth
is not an
inexhaustible inventory of natural resources. This is perhaps why
Europe is
playing a leading role in the struggle for sustainable
development, at a time
when the United States appears to be evading its responsibilities.
It is up to
Europe to set an example: sustainable development is now a
priority in the
construction of the community. Nearly ten years after the Rio
Declaration, we
must go further. Europe, which spearheads the creation of a world
environment
authority as proposed by my government, should have an ambitious
policy aimed
at devising and promoting technologies which respect the
environment.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Europe needs institutions worthy of its societal goals and its
world view. This
is where the institutional debate becomes fully relevant.
III. A political Europe requires in-depth reform
A debate is under way on the future of the Union. Conclusions are
to be drawn
in 2004, and we also know that they will require unanimous
agreement. Therefore
a consensus will have to be found among the Fifteen. We must of
course take
account of the concerns of the candidate countries. Most of them
have had the
benefit of democratic institutions and independence for only a
decade. It is
absolutely necessary that they be involved in our debate.
Interesting contributions have already been put forward.
Institutional "models"
have been proposed. In Germany, for instance, the SPD has
suggested a structure
for Europe inspired in large part by the German political system.
Other
proposals have been and will be made. Ultimately, at the end of
the process, a
compromise acceptable to all will have to be sought. This is why
we cannot
suggest institutional structures or propose solutions without
first thinking
about the political meaning which we wish to give to Europe. In
particular, the
discussion canot avoid focusing on the role of Nations within the
European
entity.
I will give my view, in that spirit. I do not separate France
from Europe. Like
many other ardent Europeans, I want Europe but my Nation remains
important to
me. My preferred policy would consist in building Europe without
unbuilding
France or any of the other European nations.
1. Thus I support the excellent idea of a "Federation of
Nation States".
"Federation" - a word which appears simple and appeals
by its coherence, but
which in fact has a great variety of meanings. For some the term
means a
European executive branch deriving its legitimacy solely from the
European
Parliament. That executive branch would have exclusive
jurisdiction in matters
of diplomacy and defence. In the new entity, today's States would
have the
status of the Länder in Germany and States in the United States.
France, and
indeed other European nations, could not accept that status or
that
interpretation of "federation".
If, on the other hand, "federation" is taken to mean a
gradual controlled
process of sharing competences or transferring competences to the
Union level,
then the term refers to the "federation of Nation States",
the term coined by
Jacques Delors. This is a concept which I fully support. From the
legal point
of view it may seem ambiguous. But I believe it is politically
sound, because
Europe is an original political structure, a unique precipitate
of an
indissoluble mixture of two different elements: the federalist
ideal and the
reality of European Nation States.
This is why the concept of a "federation of Nation States"
so aptly reflects
the constituent tension which underpins the European Union. There
are nations,
strong, vibrant nations for which identity is important, which
constitute the
wealth of our continent. And then there is also the determination
of these
nations to unite, to build an entity, together, which will make
each
constituent part stronger. There is history on the one hand,
marked by national
rivalries and selfishness, and on the other hand the program
focused on harmony
and alliance. Very strong federative forces exist already - the
primacy of
European law sanctioned by the Court of Justice, an independent
Commission, the
European Parliament elected by universal suffrage, the single
market and the
single currency. But inter-governmental co-operation still plays
an important
role and will remain indispensable.
If we want to move toward such a federation, we must clarify the
respective
competences of the Union and the States. This must be done in
accordance with
the principle of subsidiarity. The exercise should provide an
opportunity to
simplify the treaties which have become indecipherable as a
result of
successive negotiations and the gradual accretion of common
policies.
This clarification should not call shared competences into
question. These
foster synergies between State and Union activities. One example
is training,
education and culture. These areas remain within the primary
competence of
States; but for the benefit of all, they are also subject to
common policies
and community programs which should be further expanded in future.
A fortiori we should reject the re-nationalisation of policies
which have so
far been devised and conducted at Union level. It would be odd to
suggest
taking further steps in the direction of stronger European
integration and then
start by moving backwards toward a national focus. I am thinking
here in
particular of structural funds. As for the common agricultural
policy, it
should remain at European level but be redirected. While
preserving the
competitiveness of our agriculture, we must help farmers to
produce better to
enable them to meet the demand for food quality and safety. The
common
agricultural policy must encourage more balanced development of
rural areas,
preserving the diversity of our traditional rural life and
agricultural
practices.
But on the other hand in certain areas the "vertical"
division of competences
should be better implemented. The idea would be for the general
framework of
principles and objectives to be defined at European level, while
political and
technical implementation would be handled by either States or
regions,
depending on the constitutional framework and the administrative
institutions
of each member State. In this way it will be possible to avoid a
proliferation
of detailed standards which are, often rightly - hunting is an
example that
comes to mind -, considered excessively niggling.
A "federation of Nation States" would entail greater
involvement of national
parliaments in the construction of Europe. Current consultation
procedures
between the European Parliament and national parliaments do not
go far enough.
Let us vest in a common body - a permanent conference of
parliaments or
"Congress" - a real political role. Meeting in regular
sessions, it would
monitor Community institution compliance with subsidiarity and
hold an annual
"State of the Union" debate. This "Congress"
could play a role in amending the
rules within the Union. With the exception of standards of a
"constitutional"
nature, for which current ratification procedures would remain in
force, treaty
changes relating to common policy technical rules could be
handled, thanks to
this "Congress", in simplified procedures. This formula
could replace, to good
effect, the thirty or so national ratification procedures which
would otherwise
be needed in tomorrow's Europe. Common policies could thereby b
e amended far more flexibly.
As we move toward enlargement, enhanced co-operation will be
indispensable. The
enlargement of Europe is a historic necessity; but it is also a
challenge. With
the accession of new members, Europe will have to learn to manage
diversity. A
two-speed Europe is not an acceptable proposition. But
institutional paralysis
is a threat which we must ward off. Those wishing to go forward
must be able to
do so. This is why the enhanced co-operation mechanism was quite
appropriately
made more flexible in Nice. It could be obviously be applied in
such areas as
economic co-ordination in conjunction with the euro, but also in
areas such as
health care and arms. This co-operation would enable a group of
States to renew
the momentum which has always driven European construction.
Our Union will also draw its strength from the vitality of its
democracy.
2. Europe must be, for its citizens, a true political area.
An area where debate is ongoing and where genuinely European
political parties,
like the existing Party of European Socialists, meet. A area
where the peoples
of Europe will be able, in electing their representatives, to
make clear-cut
political choices. An area where the responsibilities of those
who make the
decisions will be better marked out.
Europe has become a familiar horizon for our fellow citizens but
they
nevertheless feel a deep need for greater ownership and
involvement. They want
to shape Europe. For them, elections to the European Parliament
should become
the high point of democratic life in Europe. I call for an in-depth
reform of
the current election procedures. Let us find a procedure which
would combine,
in each member State, proportional representation and a system of
large
regional constituencies. This would bring the office-holder
closer to the voter.
Between elections, the democratic process must not flag. In this
spirit I
propose three initiatives. First, direct consultation of civil
society through
dialogue fora. Let us build on the broad spectrum of voluntary
associations in
France and Europe. Let us use the new communications technologies
as in the
planned on-line election of the first European Student Council.
Second, regular
consultations held in member States on a clearly identified
important political
issue which is European in nature. These consultations could take
place in
national parliaments or in ad hoc fora. Finally, an enhanced role
for the
European Mediator, whose existence is unknown to the overwhelming
majority of
European citizens. His role could be enhanced by appointed
national or local
correspondents. The mediator would then be in a position to fully
fulfil his
mission of resolving disputes between citizens and European
institutions out of
court.
The European institutions obviously need to be reformed.
3. The European institutions must be given greater coherence and
efficiency.
The European institutional system is focused on the triangle of
the Commission,
the Council and the European Parliament. This equilibrium remains
crucial. Yet
change is necessary.
The European general interest must be better safeguarded. That is
the role of
the European Commission. Its political authority and legitimacy
must therefore
be strengthened. For this purpose I propose that the President of
the
Commission be appointed from the European political group which
wins the
European elections.
The European Parliament, as the expression of the will of the
peoples, would
thus be in a better position to fulfil its role as the
institution to which the
Commission is politically accountable and which can pass a vote
of censure
against the Commission. In return, the accountability of the
Strasbourg
Assembly should be better defined. I propose that the European
Council be given
a right to dissolve the Parliament on the proposal of the
Commission or the
Member States. This could be used in a political crisis or to
resolve an
institutional stand-off. An equilibrium of this kind exists, as
we know, in
most large representative democracies.
Like the Commission, the Council needs to be strengthened because
it is no
longer fully playing its role. The future treaty should enshrine
the European
Council which brings together Heads of State and Government and
the President
of the Commission. This Council should have the task of approving
a true
multi-year "legislative" program, based on a proposal
submitted by the
Commission and the European Parliament. It should meet more often
- for
example, every two months - and concentrate, without superfluous
protocol, on
discussing general policy guidelines and major Union decisions.
Furthermore, the time has come to think of establishing a
permanent Council of
Ministers. Its members, having a status tantamount to that of
Vice-Prime
Ministers, would co-ordinate work on European issues within their
own national
governments. A body of this type could provide impetus,
preparation and
co-ordination of European work upstream of the European Council.
In conjunction
with the European Parliament, it would better fulfil its role as
a
co-legislator in framing European "laws". In this last
respect, voting should
always be by qualified majority.
These are the guidelines and the reforms which I feel could
underpin the
institutional architecture of tomorrow's Europe.
These proposals suggest the idea, which I favour, of a European
Constitution. A
constitution would set out the structure and the functioning of
the European
institutions. Of course, it would not be enough to simply call a
new treaty a
"Constitution". A text of this type would only be
meaningful if it were the
result of in-depth reform and not the product of a simple
redrafting of the
current treaties. At the same time it is important that the
constitutional
process be a fundamental political act: the affirmation of a
common goal, the
expression of a collective ambition. This process would of course
at first be
conducted by governments; but it should also closely involve the
citizens. The
Fundamental Rights Charter would be at the heart of the
Constitution. Following
the method used to such good effect in the drafting of the
Charter, preparation
of this Constitution could be entrusted at European level to a
Convention
bringing together the different players in the Union: States,
national parliaments, the European Parliament and civil society.
Final
decisions would be taken by States and ratified by peoples.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Because I am not a lukewarm European, I do not want an insipid
Europe.
The Europe I would like to build is a strong Europe, conscious of
its political
identity, respectful of the peoples which make it up, shouldering
its
responsibilities in the world, prepared to support the burden of
its defence,
determined to preserve its balanced economic and social
development model,
resolved to independently define and stubbornly defend its
diplomatic,
industrial and commercial interests, passionately committed to
its cultural
diversity. The edification of Europe demands the best of all of
us: ambition
and imagination in vision, humility and tenacity in work.
I am determined to respond, together with others, to the call of
Europe.
Pagina iniziale - Europa apparente - Europa reale - Europa futuribile - Approfondimenti - Segnalibri - Mappa sito