Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
A
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Peter Sutherland. I'm chairman of the London School of Economics. And let me say it's a particular honour and privilege to have with us today the President of the commission, Mr. Barroso. He last came here in 2005, having been first appointed as President of the commission in 2004. And in the intervening period, as President of the Commission, he has helped to steer the European Union through a period of notable turbulence. The debate about Europe in Britain is, of course, always a difficult debate and we are now facing into a period leading up to the European elections, which will tell their own story, and after that, to the debate about Britain's place in the European Union. The subject which President Borosa will speak on this evening is reforming Europe in a changing world, which could not be more topical. Your massive attendance, which could have been even far greater than it is had we the room to accommodate them, is an indication of the importance that you also attribute to hearing what he has to say. Finally, I have to say something which I absolutely hate saying for those Twitter users in the audience. I don't even know what it means. The hashtag for today's event is lsebarroso. Even I can understand that. As usual after the lecture, there will be the opportunity for you to ask questions of President Barroso. And I'd be grateful if you would now join me in welcome welcoming him to give his speech.
- [02:09]
B
Mr. Chairman. Dear Peter, Professor Fraser, ladies and gentlemen. It's good to be back at lse, which always provides such a stimulating environment for debate, with its splendid intellectual tradition of openness and looking at things from the wider European and international perspective. It's also very good to see all of you here today. And I'd also like to welcome those who are following this debate on the Internet. Although I have to say that seeing so many young people here now who have chosen to spend Valentine's Day debating.
- [02:48]
C
Europe.
- [02:51]
B
I'm a bit surprised by your sense of priorities. Europe may not be the most romantic subject, but it certainly stirs up real passion and it does merit real debate. What I want to do in my introduction, because afterwards I'd be happy to discuss this issue more detail with you, is to look at the way the European Union is constantly changing in order to manage and make the most of globalization. And I'm particularly interested in hearing your point of view, for the outcome of this process will have far reaching consequences for us all, but especially for your generation. It's your future, so it's your voice that should count the most. So what sort of future do you want to look forward to? I bet that a stimulating and rewarding job will be quite close to the top of your list of expectations. Getting people into work and creating growth is right at the top of the Commission's to do list. But world is changing fast. Influence on economies are shifting. The pace of international competition has shifted not one, but several gears. The question of our times then, is whether or not we succeed in adapting to this changing, complex and challenging global environment. And how. That is the case for companies, both big and small, who are increasingly operating in a world of global supply chains and multinational finance. That is the case for universities engaged in a worldwide competition for brains, funds and prestige. That is the case for the media, whose input and output are now able to cross borders as never before. And most importantly, adapting to a changing global environment is a challenge for citizens too. It's a challenge for each one of you. What is going to be your position in face of this globalization, in change of these opportunities, but also challenges coming from the biggest globalization movement we have witnessed in human history. That is why structures of governance need to adapt, to help citizens do the same, to protect the citizens from some of the undesirable effects of globalization and to support them in getting the most out of the opportunities that globalization offers in terms of jobs, travel, knowledge and innovation, education and exposure to new ideas. Technological changes and economic shifts have altered both the tools and the targets of government. Challenges such as climate change, supply of energy and other natural resources, and the sheer interdependence of economies and financial markets simply cannot be dealt with at national level alone. Citizens have higher expectations and different ideas of what government at all levels should do and should not do for them. And this in turn has led to a legitimate debate about where decisions are best taken. In this fast changing world. Size matters more than ever, critical mass matters. And an enlarged European Union of 28 member states has more impact than any of its member states do individually. Let me add from a personal point of view, because some of the comments I hear very often today is that Europe is in decline. Look, I was very young foreign minister of my country. I remember when we were only 12. I remember the summit in Edinburgh, when, by the way, we decided the funding for the next seven years of the European Union. There is something in the fate of the European Union that those decisions are taken during the British Presidency. It was during the presidency at that time of John Major, and that was afterwards with the presidency of Tony Blair. There was my predecessor, Jacques Delors, Helmut Cole, Francois Mitterrand, Felipe Gonzalez, many more, but only 12. And at that time, the foreign ministers were part of the European Council. Today, it's only the heads of certain government, as you know. And when I compare the way the United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, Brazil look at us today and the way they were looking at that time, I can tell you, based on concrete experience, that they respect much more a European Union of continental size, a European Union that is really a very important power globally than when we were probably cozier 6 or 9 or 12, but with not this dimension. So size matters. Today, if we want to discuss with our American partners or with China or other giants, it's obvious that the European Union gives more leverage to the actions of each of our member states, even those who have an extensive network of international influence and very important international resources. Ladies and gentlemen, this process of adapting can feel like a new and uncomfortable challenge. Sometimes the temptation can be to close the curtains, hide behind the sofa and hope it will all go away. But European story has always been about dealing with a changing context. The Coal and Steel community that literally bolt the continent together in peace and shared values. The single market that overcame economic inefficiency and fragmentation, deliberately creating interdependence through one trading space. A single market in goods, services, capital and people. More recently, within the European Union, we have brought countries together around a shared agenda to update our economies to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. In today's globalized world, that means updating skills, going digital, boosting research and innovation, using our resources, better resource efficiency, and also be able to fight together against a very important existential threat to our planet, that is climate change. European integration has been and remains one of our best tools to manage and benefit from globalization. And maybe most importantly, the European Union, as I said, has expanded. And as more member states have joined, Europe's nations have strengthened their place and voice in the wider world. We have come a long way. 100 years ago, Europe showed the world how not to act. Today, Europe points the way forward. A more peaceful, more prosperous, more progressive continent than anyone would have thought possible. In just 100 days, when up to 500 million people across Europe will have the chance to voice their opinions on the future of Europe through democratic elections. We should not take this for granted. Just ask the people waving European flags on the streets of Ukraine. They look to Europe for freedom, prosperity and security. They know what Europe is for. We are starting to emerge from one of the biggest financial and economic crisis ever, certainly the biggest crisis ever since the beginning of European integration. As we now speak about it. Since the 50s of last century, at the height of the crisis, some said that European integration could not survive the shock that it was the end of the euro, even of the European Union. I've heard in the most acute moments of the crisis, I've heard experts, analysts, commentators making very, let's say, concrete predictions to their clients, for instance in financial world about Greece exiting euro, the implosion of the euro, also the possible disintegration in European Union. I have to say that they were wrong. I should also remind them that the financial economic crisis was not a result of European integration. In some countries, by the way, including this one, the turmoil in the financial markets was the result of irresponsible practices in parts of the financial sector. In others, the economic crisis was deepened by a lack of competitiveness as a result of delayed or or half hearted reforms. And too many member states inside and outside the euro area had built up untenable debts, again often against the consistent recommendations made by the European Commission. And I say inside and outside the euro area because it became popular to speak about the crisis of the euro area or the crisis of the euro, forgetting that we had the crisis in euro area countries and in non EURA countries. We had programs also for countries that were not or not yet in the euro area, from Latvia that meanwhile joined to Hungary to Romania. And we had the crisis in countries that are not even in European Union. The biggest, most instant case being of course Iceland. So once again the crisis was not a result of the Euro. The crisis was the result of lack of supervision, a complete national responsibility. At that time there was no competence of European institutions in terms of supervision or an accumulation of debts that member states have allowed to expand from two levels that were in fact not manage. So not only was Europe not the cause of the crisis, indeed it has shielded us from even bigger risks. During the crisis it was thanks to European solidarity that we could help the most vulnerable countries inside and outside of Eurozone. It was thanks to European resolve that we could forestall a cycle of protectionism and kept markets open for, among others, British exports, which at a time when the UK economy was readjusting radically, was good news for British businesses and British jobs too. But the crisis taught us all lessons and European Union has adapted as a result. We have radically reformed the way Europe's single market in financial services is regulated and supervised. We have prioritized initiatives to boost employment, in particular amongst the young. If, even if I want to remind, employment according to the treaties is mainly a national responsibility. So When I see some people saying, but what does Europe for employment? I mean, what do the governments for employment? That's their responsibility. Labor market policy is a national responsibility. We can help. And in fact, we are now creating new instruments that before the crisis were not available because member states simply did not want the European Union to, to have these responsibilities. And above all, we have now all understood that full monetary union demands a more advanced and more integrated system of economic governance for the eurozone countries, open to everyone and fully compatible with the single market. Before this reform, the European Commission could draw government's attention to excessive debts, structural inefficiencies or macroeconomic imbalances. But it relied on peer pressure alone to remedy them. Now, for countries in Europe, we have effective tools to act against budgetary irresponsibility, to target macroeconomic risks, to push for profound structural reforms with the threat of strict sanctions. And we are seeing the results of the reforms underway. Latvia, that has implemented one of the quickest and toughest adjustment programs, has not only joined euro area, but currently has one of the highest growth rates in European Union. Ireland is now able to issue long term debt at rates of only about 3%. So in a better position after the structural adjustment program than some countries that have not felt the need to ask for those kind of support. Spain has exited its specific program for banks successfully and is once again attracting new investors. Greece is expected to return to growth this year. Portugal has seen positive growth since the second quarter of last year. Just today there were new figures confirming very good results. Its unemployment rate and interest spreads are consistently going down and we expect it to successfully conclude its program shortly. So countries have worked really hard to rebalance their budgets and reform their economies. Aware of the impact their efforts or lack of efforts have on other economies. They could not have done it on their own. This is very important because people speak about the current difficulties and we know about extreme difficulties in, in some parts of Europe, namely social difficulties, unemployment and in some cases situation of social emergency. But people should ask, and what if they were not in the European Union? Or what if they were not in the Euro? Of course they would have to adjust because the financial markets were completely closed to them. They had not financed at that time financial, financial support capacity to finance themselves, not only to pay the debt, but to pay the deficit. So without the support of the euro area countries, without the instruments that we have created, meanwhile, it will be simply impossible for some of these countries to pay their public services, to pay their public servants, to pay the national health system, to pay the Social Security system to, to pay all the basic functions of a modern state. So certainly it was, and it still is very difficult, but the alternative will certainly be more difficult. At European level also. So I spoke about efforts of the countries now, but also at European level. We have deepened economic governance, bringing our economic integration in line with the monetary union. We have set up systems to support euro area economies in need, such as European Stability Mechanism, completely new, some call it European IMF with 700 billion euros. We have put in place common rules for all EU banks, including making sure bonus policies do not encourage irresponsible behavior, as well as a framework partly inspired by sinking here in Ukraine for managing when banks go wrong without calling on support from the taxpayer. To sum up, we have shown that we are willing and able to do whatever is necessary to make sure the Euro thrives, to maintain the benefits of the single market and to regain the trust of financial markets, investors and citizens alike. When the difficulties in the Eurozone first became clear, the outside world, from international political partners to global companies to experts and academics, was unanimous in demanding far reaching change, fully aware that their fate was tied to ours and vice versa. Let me tell you, anticipating my memoir, that I had some difficult moments when representing the European Union. I was in all these G8 and G20 meetings and I had to listen to some representatives of some countries that are not some of them examples of governance, telling us how to deal with the crisis of the Euro. But at the same time all of them say, please unite, please do it together. We need a strong Euro, a credible currency, and we need that you do it together. From the President of the United States to the President of China, to the Prime Minister of Japan, the President of Russia, the President, President of Brazil. This was the message that we were getting because the outside world understood how important was the stability in Europe, also for global stability and global prosperity. But I can tell you that at the last year's G8 meeting in Lough Hearn and the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, we Europeans did not receive any lessons on how to address the crisis any longer. Instead, we got appreciation and encouragement because the challenges are now well understood and they are not at all limited to Europe, as we are seeing now. And the effectiveness of our crisis response is now equally well noted because Europe has taken the bull by the horns. Of course, if you ask me what is my sincere opinion, could we have done it better? Could we have done it faster? Certainly we could. By the way, the European Commission was always pushing for this more ambition. But let's be Honest. We are a union of democratic states now, 18 countries in euro area, 28 countries in Ukrainian. And we have to take democratic decisions. We cannot impose them. So if you consider the extreme complexity of the European Union as a construct, I think it is fair to recognize that a lot was done done to avoid the most negative consequence of the crisis and also to come to a new situation. So it is perhaps surprising, at least for me, to see the persistence of some of the doomsayers within Europe. They have updated their tune. Of course. The argument is now that Europe lacks the capacity to deliver grossen jobs and faces a lost decade. And all too often, instead of looking at the things that need to change at home, it seems much easier to point to Brussels as the ball and chain that is dragging down Europe's growth potential. We still see the temptation so common in so many national politicians to Europeanize failure and nationalized success. By the way, that is not the worst we are accused of. Just last week, Brussels was blamed for the devastating floods here in the south of England. And we have also been accused of the death of poor Marius the giraffe in Denmark. It's an instant caricature. But it's only that caricature. Of course, neither the floods nor the giraffe have anything to do with European regulations or responsibilities at all. But that said, and now, speaking seriously on the floods, I'd like to say that the European Commission stands ready to help in any way it can and will look constructively at any request from the UK government for assistance under the Solidarity Fund. Of course, in accordance with the criteria of this fund, less look to the facts. Starting with the fact that for the past decade the European Commission has been working with and for member states to deliver the right environment for growth at home and abroad. Under our Program for Smart and Better Regulation, which I Launched back in 2005, we have presented 660 initiatives for simplification, cut initiative burden by over 25%, and have repealed more than 5590 legal acts. For example, we no longer have unnecessarily complex rules on fruit and vegetable standards. So you will already have seen. You can buy cucumbers in all the shapes and sizes you may wish. As I've said very clearly and very often before, not everything needs a solution at European level. Europe must focus on where it can add most value. It does not have to meddle where it should not. That is why, in spite of the calls in that direction, we have not proposed European legislation against back pains or to stop hairdressers from wearing high heels. Let me be honest, I also have back pain. And so it's a very serious issue also for people that are working. But we, I frankly think that we don't need a regulation at European level for back pain. So here I've been saying this to the European Parliament and I see here some distinguished members of the European Parliament. I think this is something that we have to think really about, whether we can many cases repeal legislation that is not needed. And if I may quote, great French philosopher here, Montesquieu, he said, and I've quoted it also European Parma les loi unit il fi bliss les loi ni CE sar. Useless laws weaken the necessary ones. And this is something I'm very committed to. So our default rule is to exempt the smallest companies from European legislation. EU needs to be big on big things and small on the smaller things. And one of the biggest things we do is upholding and deepening the single market, enforcing competition rules and stopping unfair subsidies, laying out concrete plans for further opening our internal market. For instance, in the telecoms and digital sectors, where UK companies stand to benefit from new European markets and taking action against member states where they have been slow to fulfill their commitments. For example, in relation to the internal market in energy. On trade, the European Commission negotiates international deals on behalf of all the member states. And having been personally engaged in this, I have to tell you I've learned a lot about agricultural denominations in the last years. I can tell you on these negotiations, size really matters. European Union is the biggest trade player in the world. We have had some great results recently, finally achieving a breakthrough in the WTO last December. While our bilateral liberalization effort has gathered unprecedented pace. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with us that I was proud to launch. Negotiations in the margins of the G18 law firm, together with President Obama, could be worth £10 billion a year to the UK alone. We have concluded good trade deals with South Korea and Canada. We are negotiating with Japan, mercosur and India. That is a world of new opportunities for European companies, which mean jobs opportunities for our citizens. And since we want our European companies to be able to compete on the merits abroad, we have fought for better rules against tax evasion and tax fraud internationally. And last month we presented our Long Term framework on climate and energy, building on successful experience of our 2020 policies and looking beyond combining ambition with realistic assessments and proportionality. Taken together, all this shows that there is a space for reform and that necessary changes are being actively and ambitiously pursued, debated and delivered. And I think the moment is ripe here in uk, but also more widely to pursue this. There is a groundswell of people, civil society, business people, trade unions, commentators, politicians, making the positive case for looking at Europe on the facts and pragmatically addressing the things that can be improved. That is something I can only welcome in this context. I would like to mention free movement of people. I know that feelings run high on this issue, so we need to be crystal clear. I am very much aware that free movement may put unintended strains on local communities and services, and that in some cases there has been abuse. There is a lot that national governments can do to tackle abuses if and when they occur. European rules include firm measures to tackle fraud. The European Commission is eager to help. We can provide financial support for integration through the European Social Fund, for example. And we have clarified anti abuse rules, for instance, on sham marriages. We are tough on abuse. At the same time, we remain absolutely firm on the principle of free movement rights. There are four freedoms in the single market. Goods, services, capital and people. We need all four of them. There is a balance here. For some, opening up one area, such as service, is self evident because it creates huge new markets for things like the legal or business services that, for instance, the UK excels in. When it comes to goods, we all benefit from more choice. The same goes for capital. It was no easy ride keeping our internal market for financial services open during the crisis. But we have done it in the interest of strong and competitive European financial centers right here in London as well as in Paris or Frankfurt. You cannot have a single market without free movement of European citizens. The UK has long shown that flexible and mobile labor markets help deal with economic changes and asymmetric shocks. Those who move to work tend to put way more into the tax system than they take out in benefits. And successive UK governments have been at the forefront of efforts to bring new opportunities to new member states through enlargement. So we should not now disappoint the new members of our union. It will be completely unfair. And also, if you think in economic terms, namely when you speak about competitiveness of Europe, comparing to the United States or others, can you imagine a situation where goods, capital and services could move from New York to California, but people could not? It would be absurd. An internal market needs all these freedoms. If not, we are shooting in our own feet. And also, there must be no first and second class citizens in Europe where only the high skilled are able to move and work freely while the low skilled are not. This will be a kind of stratification Social stratification that is against all the principles of fairness and against the principle of non discrimination. So we need to be also clear about the figures. There are as many UK citizens in other EU countries as there are Europeans living and working in uk. And what is very clear is people's perception of free movement, because in all opinion pools across Europe it consistently comes out as the one thing people see as one of Europe's greatest achievements, freedom of movement, namely for the new generation. This is something that is extremely important and we should not forget, because I still remember when I was a little bit younger than you that it was not so easy to travel around Europe. I even don't mention to work or to study. To travel, to go from one country to another was sometimes an adventure. Not to speak about those that are now members of a union, that were subject to totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, that could not even apply for a passport, they could not leave their own country. So freedom of movement is a great progress in human civilization. Ladies and gentlemen, in a democracy, any reform agenda should provoke debate. In Europe the discussion is not about a lack of reform. It is about the depth, direction and speed of our reform efforts. In a few weeks time, people across Europe would exercise democratic right to question those changes, put forward their views and decide the outcome. This is a process of constant adaptation. Personally, I feel further integration of Euro area is unavoidable. It must be designed in a way that complements everything we have achieved so far, that preserves the integrity of the single market that guarantees equal treatment of all member states and free and undistorted trade and competition that maintains our economic, social and territorial collision. We must continue to find ways to accommodate diversity without undermining the fundamental unity of the 28 member European Union. Flexibility is necessary. That does not mean we should move to Europe a la carte. Nor would it be right to put into question our shared values and principles. Of course this will not be acceptable. But it is clear that that some countries are going to go further quicker than others. If the political will is there, this can be accommodated. Diversity in areas such as justice in home affairs and defence has been an integral and workable part of European life for decades now. And last of all, let me say this. This is a collective moment to focus on what we expect from Europe, what can be achieved in Europe and through Europe in the wider world. This is your decision and your responsibility. I believe your future in all the areas I have just mentioned. Single market, financial services, competitiveness and innovation, enlargement, trade, the way we promote our values and our economic interests in the world stage. In all these areas, successful UK governments have engaged proactively one allies and convince their partners of the legitimacy of their case. The European Union would not have become what it is today if it weren't for British politicians and entrepreneurs, British thinkers and British ideas. Without uk, Europe would be less reform driven, less open and less international. Less effective as a tool for managing and benefiting from continuing globalization. For a country so open to the world, it's a paradox that UK remains so torn on Europe. European Union is not some diktat forced upon member states. It is created by the member States to work with and for them and promote our shared European interest at home and in dealing with the rest of the world. The uk, which is very good at selling its views and promoting its interests in European Union, is a lot stronger as a result of it. I know that there are several perspectives on Europe, but I believe the right thing to do is not to turn away, but to engage and see what together we can do to make it better. If you don't like Europe as it is, improve it, talk about it. Explain the practical concerns. Find ways to make Europe stronger, internal and internationally. And you will have in me the firmest of supporters. Find ways that allow for diversity without creating discrimination, holding up the equality of member states and a shared engagement to preserve our freedoms, our four freedoms, but also the principles and values, democratic principles and values that are at the core of European Union. And I will be with you all the way because that is precisely what I have been doing from the moment I took up office in Brussels 10 years ago. And let me finish with a word on the so called British question. In the end, the British people can judge for themselves. But my very personal, very strong conviction is that the European Union is better off in the UK and that UK is better off in the European Union. I thank you for your attention.
- [36:46]
C
Well, Mr. President, thank you really enormously for what has been certainly a wide ranging lecture, a rich lecture and with a really punchy conclusion envoy that I'm sure will be widely picked up, noticed. And that was really a first rate talk and we're very grateful to you. Now we have, as per usual LSE tradition, we have left a decent amount of time for questions to the President. And I propose that we should take these one by one. And I'm sure you'll well understand if I privilege the younger members of the academic community students in the first instance. But I'm sure there'll be time to take questions from a Wide number of communities. Now, if you could please. Yes, indicate if you would like to speak. Wait for the roving microphone to come round. And please keep it short and sweet. And don't try to smuggle the second question in under the first. I will just have to cut you short. But without further ado, let's crack on. And yes, questions, please. And do give your name and affiliation, please. Yes, the gentleman in the blue. Yes, that.
- [38:12]
B
Yep.
- [38:14]
C
That showed. Just a bit further along. A bit further along. Yes, the gentleman there in the blue shirt. Hi.
- [38:20]
D
Thank you for coming. My name is Philip Angelides and I'm a Master's of International Relations student here. You referred to the idea that it would be not possible or it'd be crazy that people couldn't move from New York to California. And I really wanted to press you on the idea of education within the European Union. And in countries such as Greece and Italy, where there is very high unemployment, many people will leave the country and never come back. And so, you know, they refer to this as brain drain. And I just wanted to see if you would talk about this and how to address it.
- [38:55]
B
That's a very good point, but I believe in the individual freedoms. I believe the state is not the property over the citizens. If a citizen of one country wants to go and study another one enriching himself or herself, I think he should have that right. I really believe it's very important. If I may now make a more personal remark. You know that my son, one of my sons, came here and made a PhD at LSE in European Law. And afterwards he went to New York University and now he decided to come back to Portugal. So. And I think that that's the world of today. People can go and travel not only in Europe, but also in the wider world. Isn't that a great opportunity? Look, it's amazing. It's very good. I remember when there was in many European countries people completely closed with all kinds of prejudices. So there is this risk of brain drain. But then the countries have to face that as well. They have to make themselves more attractive. They have to also be able to have back many of their people that are outside, but also outside people can give a contribution to their country. I'm not against the national sentiments. I think the nations remain, for the time being, the most relevant community, political community of reference. But at the same time, we are citizens of Europe for those who are in the opinion, and we are also citizens of the world. So I think that point should not distract us from what is the freedom of movement, the freedom to study, by the way, UK at that point is a great success. And also if you think about the industry of education, I don't like very much the word industry connected education because I believe in humanistic values of education. Education means science, knowledge or culture is the best way for a person to fulfill its dreams, realize himself or herself. So it has a value on itself before having an economic value. But nevertheless, on economic terms, Britain is a great exporter of education. And congratulations, you have built some very good universities like this one, where we are now, that are attractive to the rest of the world. Other countries, the. They should try to do the same and some are in fact doing it as well. Even if the British have a comparative advantage is of course the English language that became a lingua franca. But that's not the only advantage. So let's work for a freedom of movement and freedom of ideas in the world. I'm a strong believer in that.
- [41:46]
C
Thank you. The lady. Yes, two seats in just. Yeah, exactly. Thank you.
- [41:53]
E
Thank you, President barroso. Julia Moravska, PhD student in the international relations department here. You mentioned the protests and demonstrations in Ukraine and I just wanted to ask what would be the EU's ideal case scenario in terms of the resolution of the situation in Ukraine? Thank you.
- [42:11]
B
First of all, we want to avoid more violence. I spoke with President Yanukovych several times. Last one by first telling them that they should refrain from violence, they should now promote amnesty and they should bring stability, because I think this is a real risk of negrivation of the conflict. I believe that the only way to do it is through political dialogue, a serious dialogue between the government and opposition, so the situation is calm and then create conditions for the democratic elections to take place, place in respect, of course, of the constitutional order, if needed. Constitutional reform. It's for the Ukrainians to decide and then of course for them to decide freely on what paths they want to follow, if they want to come closer to the European Union. I think that's what most Ukrainians really want, or if they want another kind of status. But that's their choice. But. And we are very strongly supporting that movement. Bernice Eshtan, our high representative for external relations and Vice president of the Commission and also Commissioner Stefan Fuller have been constantly going to Kiev, meeting not only the president and the government, but also the leaders of the position. And that has been the consistent message that not only the European institutions, but our member states are conveying both to the representatives of the regime there and. And to the democratic movements. And the opposition movements. And I'm still hoping that a solution can be found that can be good for Ukraine, for the Ukrainian people, and also for stability in that very important country for us.
- [43:51]
A
Thank you.
- [43:53]
C
Yes, gentleman in the gray. I think I should reward his tenacity before he requires orthopedic attention to his arm. Please.
- [44:04]
F
Thank you. Paris and Beroso Mathieu Bourice.
- [44:07]
B
I come from.
- [44:07]
F
I'm a general course student here, Exchange from Sans Po in Paris. And you have been a very strong advocate of freedom of movement.
- [44:15]
C
Can you speak up a little bit?
- [44:15]
B
Oh, sorry.
- [44:16]
F
I've been a very strong advocate of the freedom of movement around Europe. But however, a week ago there has been a referendum in Switzerland which has a very peculiar direct democracy system. And that I wanted to know what do you think of the impact of this referendum could have on the EU and the freedom of movement?
- [44:36]
B
We have already expressed our official position, but I'm happy to repeat to you, of course, we take note of that result of that referendum in respect to democratic result of the referendum. The truth is that by a small margin, but it's the yes vote that in this case was restricting freedom of movement for foreigners as one. Now we have an agreement with Switzerland that provides the Swiss unrestricted access to the European Union. And we believe it is not fair that we offer that privilege to our Swiss friends and they don't offer the same to the European Union citizens. There are 430,000 Swiss people in Europe. There is no country in the world outside of European economic space that enjoys so many privilege and access to the European than Switzerland. That by the way, it's very important, even if it is a relatively small country, it's a very important partner. We are by far their biggest trade and investment partner, but they are also an important partner for Europe. So there is an international agreement. And what happened now on freedom of movement between the European Union and Switzerland? And Switzerland, if it follows strictly now, the conclusions of that referendum will break that international agreement. So it's up to the Swiss authorities now to come with some solutions. We are waiting for them and we are of course as always, ready to discuss things constructive. But we are not going to negotiate on a basic principle is a principle of freedom of movement. We cannot accept accepted discrimination. And this is the point that we are going to discuss with the Swiss. If I also may add a personal note, I know very well Switzerland. I was there six years precisely as a post graduated student and then assistant at university. I've visited all the cantons of Switzerland which not Many Swiss have done so. I know. I know the feeling there. And it's interesting to look at the votes. I don't know if I've looked at the vote, but the vote was. The vote against foreigners was stronger in the cantons where are not so many foreigners. For instance, in the Francophone cantons, for instance, like in Geneva, where I was at the time, but also in the Zurich, in Basel, in Zug, the vote against those restrictions was higher. It was in some cantones, with exception of Ticino, the Italian phone. Swiss. But that has to do probably with Italian sensibilities. But the reality is.
- [47:25]
C
What could you mean?
- [47:30]
B
The reality is that those cantons, those cities where there are more foreigners, they voted in favor of the foreigners because they know they are bringing a great contribution to Switzerland. In fact, the prosperity of Switzerland would have been impossible without those foreign workers. So I'm confident, and as you know, a, all the mainstream parties and.
- [48:03]
C
The.
- [48:03]
B
Business community and the trade unions were against that result. So I hope that this situation will find a solution. But I have to say that it is certainly a situation with serious consequences and that it is in this spirit that not only the European Commission, but our member states have faced this result.
- [48:22]
C
Thank you. The lady right at the back against the wall. Yes. With her arm up. Now kindly get a ring.
- [48:43]
E
Hi, my name's Asta Judah and I'm a student of European Studies at King's College, London. You made a really important point about the Ukraine, and actually I'd like to come back to that, is that it's now become the symbol of European freedom. And then you mentioned later that it's up to them to choose to have a closer relationship with us. But I want to ask you, when will we ever be prepared to offer them the ultimate goal of freedom, which would be member states to become a member state. Do you think that Europe could talk with a stronger voice over this?
- [49:15]
B
Okay. The position of the European Union and the European Union member states is to go step by step. We are not excluding that goal of full membership of the European Union. But at this stage, what we have offered Ukraine also, because, let's be frank, Ukraine is not ready for European accession. What we can offer them is this association agreement. So it's a political association and economic integration. We have offered them a free trade, so called dcfta, Deep Comprehensive and Free Trade association or agreement that gives them almost unrestricted access in terms of trade to the European Union. While they are going to do it very gradually, at least in 15 years. And I believe this is A great contribution, apart of course, from the macroeconomic assistance that we are operating offering them if they conclude an agreement with the imf. So at this moment, we cannot offer realistically a prospect of accession to Ukraine and other countries, let's say, in the immediate future. But we have already stated very clearly that we believe the future of Ukraine is in Europe. Now. What is shape this is going to take? We cannot at this moment assume because they have to fulfill all the conditions. And also we as European Union have to be prepared to incorporate some of these member states. So it's not yet that time. But I repeat, we are not excluding that perspective.
- [50:52]
C
Thank you. Yes, right. More questions. Yes, gentleman in the white shirt front there. And then I think we'll enlarge to other communities other than students.
- [51:09]
B
Sorry, professors. I have also the right to speak professors.
- [51:14]
C
Indeed, Indeed. Yes, the gentleman there in the white shirt. Yes, hello. Yeah, please. Yeah, looks white.
- [51:23]
B
Thank you.
- [51:23]
C
It's a bit pink, but fire away. Short and sweet, please. And then we can get quite a few more questions in. Thank you. Thanks.
- [51:29]
B
Okay.
- [51:30]
C
My name is Nikolay Nikolov and I'm.
- [51:32]
B
A PhD student at UCL. I just wanted to ask, with regards.
- [51:34]
C
To Ukraine and also Bosnia and Kosovo, if they're not ready for accession, can you say a couple of words about the future of European integration, seeing that.
- [51:42]
B
There'S such deep political crisis in these countries? You have mentioned other countries, in fact, with some of these countries, the European Union member states already mentioned that they could become members if they make the necessary reforms. It's the case for all the Balkan countries, including Bosnia, Kosovo and others. And in fact, with some of them, we already gave them the status of candidate countries, or we are already negotiating from Montenegro to Serbia. And we are very advanced with Albania. These are countries that are relatively small that we believe that if they fulfill the criteria, we, we can offer them a realistic perspective in the not long term of becoming members of the European Union. And that is the message that we have been consistently conveying. And by the way, this year, last year, we have another member joining the European Union and Croatia, also from former Yugoslavia, as we had before Slovenia, another member of former Yugoslavia. So there is a realistic expectation for the Balkan countries to become members of the European Union if they fulfill all the criteria. And that's what we are doing through pre accession instruments, through different instruments of financial technical assistance to those countries. Thank you.
- [53:05]
C
Tony Giddens. Had you had your hand up?
- [53:08]
F
Come down?
- [53:10]
C
Yes, just in front row.
- [53:12]
B
So it's the younger professor.
- [53:14]
G
I'm honored to be the first member of the aging generation. Welcome to the debate. I'm Tony Giddens, previous director of the lse and I'd just like to say on behalf, both directors here, how pleased we are that you came to give this speech. And thank you for its forceful nature as well. You didn't say very much, actually. About the main thing for a long time was the bone of contention, the euro. And I wonder if I could just press you a bit on that. I mean, it doesn't seem to me the crisis of the euro is finally resolved. And what I'd like to ask you is, is it possible to stabilize the euro in the longer term without some form of mutualization of debt, no matter how hedged around that might be with conditions? If that is the case, is there ever any chance of persuading Germany to endorse such a strategy?
- [54:08]
B
No, I have not. Probably I was not clear. Professor Giddens, I have not said that the crisis is over. I think I've never said it. But what I said is that at least I implicitly mentioned is that the existential crisis of the doubts about Europe, this I believe, it's over. Now, let me be very Frank with you, 2012 I invited to speak with me at what I've done sometimes the chief economists of. I think it were around 12 banks, the biggest banks working in Europe. It was a brainstorm. And I've asked them, how many of you think that Greece is going to exit the euro this year? All of them, except one said it's unavoidable. Greece is going to exit euro. And these are chief economists. These are very, let's say, expert people, I would say even sometimes more expert than chairman of the bank. And that was what they were predicting. It did not happen. And I told him at the time, you are wrong. You are wrong because you are underestimating the political factors. For instance, many American partners and friends, including, by the way, the American president, asked us, in the most difficult moments, do you believe that Germany will stand by the euro? And I have always said to them, I'm absolutely sure that Germany stands by the euro, because Germany has made a political strategic decision of linking their future to the European and to the euro. So I have no doubt that Germany, and you see afterwards in the vote in the Bundestag, it was a great support, not only a big discussion, because it's a very democratic country. Germany with a. The different Lander, the different the Bundestag and the Bundesrat and the political discussion even inside the coalition at that Time it was the cdu, CSU plus Liberal Party. Now it's another coalition, as you know. But what is interesting to see is the vote in the Bundestag, a huge majority, not only the parties in government, but the parties in the main opposition parties, with the exception of the former Communists, all of them, including the Greens, supporting very strongly and of course the SPD supporting very strongly all the rescue plans to Greece, to Portugal, to Ireland and most recently to Cyprus. Now they do it their own way, Germany does it their own way. They have their own financial culture that is certainly different from France. I've been dealing with this day and night during the last five years. I can tell it's very challenging. But at the end they have done their part. I think neutralization is something that Germany will not say no at a later stage. I really believe. By the way, if you look at the manifesto of the CDU party, they say that basically. But what they don't want to assume now is that that neutralization is a way of other countries to do also what they believe are necessary reforms. They want to do it step by step. Some of us were ready. In fact, the European Commission made some proposals about aerobonds and the sincere bonds were not acceptable by not only Germany, to be very honest, there were several other countries that were not accepting at all from the right and from the left, from the right and from the left. They have not at all accepted the idea of neutralization. But we came with this project bonds, it's some kind. So I believe, by the way, now in the single resolution mechanism that we are now discussion discussing that was already approved by the member states, but that European Parliament wants more ambition. There is already a principle of mutualization, but it's progressive mutualization only at the end of the period process when all the countries have their own fund for resolution and not before. So yes, I believe, and we have said it in a blueprint for the economic deep and economic genuine and deep economic and monetary union. We say that fiscal union will come at appropriate time for the members of the oweri. And I'm confident that the trend will be that one. It will take time, but in fact. And that's. I'm sorry, I've been too long, but your question is so interesting. One of the things that is interesting to note that many analysts have not noted is that since the beginning of the crisis, in spite of all the negative comments, all the pessimism, all the steps have been for more integration, not less integration. We have now a much more integrated system of governance. You have the so called six pack to two pack approved five by the Parliament but by the Council. That for instance gives the commission the right to make a priori assessment of the national budget. That was something that in the times of my great predecessor Jacques Delors, if nobody would think that was possible today the powers in the euro area in terms of integration are extremely important. Why? Precisely because member states have understood that they cannot do that on their own. In many cases it is important for the countries to have a common currency, that they need some common discipline at the end. It's a political issue. During the most acute moments of the crisis, what my American partners and friends and others were asking me was not so much what about the deficit of Greece? They were asking me what about Germany? And do you believe that there will be a real economic and monetary union? Is there the political will for that? Because at the end the stability and the credibility of a currency depends on the solidity and the credibility of the institutionals behind it. So it's a political issue. That's why I've said in my introductory remarks I believe that will be unavoidable for, for the Eurasian countries some reforms that allow for a deeper integration, including the banking union that we are now already making. Basically it's done. But also more in terms of fiscal union, the economic union and let's not be afraid of the words also because I'm seeing my friend Andrew Duff there and a political union. A political union for the countries that want it, namely those in the euro area. And that is the biggest challenge for the next years I think in Europe. How to combine the needs to deepen the integration in economic and monetary union. That is not only a demand of the most enthusiastic of European integration or the Federalist. No, the markets demand that the markets want clearly that a single currency has a solid construct behind it. How to combine the indispensable integration of the economic and monetary union with the union of 28 in the future more members where we should keep the integrity of the single market. This is politically and intellectually, that's why it's very good for your university because you are going to write many scientific articles and instinct articles because politically and intellectually it will be one of the biggest challenges. And that's why the British issue is so important in the middle of this very important, apart from the value of itself, because of the importance of Britain itself for the overall debate about the future of Europe is a critical issue. So we are going to have very interesting times in the next future of the European Union. Including intellectual discussions about it, talking of.
- [62:05]
C
The single market and the desirability of completing it, as Mario Monti 2, 3 years ago actually set out, as you know, a number of ways in which perhaps progress could be made, including in services under your successive presidencies. President Barroso, the Commission has had a broadly liberal, economically liberal complexion. It's been seen that way not to the satisfaction of all capitals, you know which ones I mean, and in Europe, but on the whole, both you and the College of Commissioners have had a fairly classical liberal analysis. How likely do you think it is that that broad complexion of the Commission, when a new Commission comes to be formed later in the year, can be preserved? And how desirable do you think it should be that it should continue that way in the face of pressures from some of the parties which are likely to do well in the European Parliament elections, who will have a more protectionist or interventionist or dirigist approach. So should the Commission remain a liberal body?
- [63:12]
B
That's an extremely interesting issue because it joins the two issues, policies and politics. Also the institutional matter. Why has the European Commission this liberal image, and not only liberal image, I think it's more than that which by the way, in some countries is positive received, in some is very negatively perceived because in some countries the word liberal is, or ultra liberal, as they say, sometimes is kind of a manifest of devil coming. To me, the reason is apart from the persons that have been in the Commission, we can come back to this because of the competences that the European Commission has as European competencies. The European Commission has authority to competition, competition law, by the way, European Commission is considered all over the world, probably the most credible authority in competition terms. Our American friends had started before us antitrust law for those who have studied law. Now they look at the doctrine and I will even say jurisprudence. It's not the right word of the European Commission. We have competency in competition, we have competencies in trade. It's European Commission on behalf of all the member states negotiate trade. So we have competences in terms of stability and growth pact where we have to make sure that the member states respect rules of, let's say fiscal prudence. We have not the competence of Social Security, national public, health, education. We have there some complementary competencies, but that the core is that so. By the way, during the crisis I wrote a letter to all the heads of state and government when they were making now the six pack, the two pack. So giving more powers to the Commission instead. Some powers we have not asked for. And I said to them, you have been much more generous in giving the European Commission powers of discipline and sanction than powers of solidarity and collision. Because it's easier also for the member states to have sometimes the bad cop, not them, a kind of a tough referee. And this explains why the European Commission has been specializing forcing internal market. And I have to tell you now, based on my experience, if it was not for the European Commission and for the European Court of Justice, we will no longer have an internal market. Today, in the crisis of 2008, 2009, even the most traditional supporters of the internal market were hesitating, including Britain, because there was a panic. State aid was indispensable to save the banks. And many of them called me, say, Jose Manuel, you have to abolish all these rules. We have to suspend the rules. And it was some of the new member states, sometimes small countries, that said, no, this is not fair because we cannot have this money to support our banks. So we have to keep a level playing field. And I'm very happy and very proud that in the face of these terrible pressures, we as Commission have done our best to defend the integrity of the internal market. And today I think we can say that it is respected. And when it is not, European Commission goes to the Court of Justice and goes the same day. We can put, as we have put recently, by the way, the Service because of Service Directive, we went the same day against Germany and Greece because they were not transposing, in our view, the necessary regulation on the Services Directive. So, and so my, my. My advice to all of those that have an. In this issue, if you want internal market, if you want an open economy in Europe, you have to support European Commission whoever. Whoever is there. Now, professor, the last point you've put a question that is more political. What is going to be the composition of next Commission? I don't know. That's instinct to see afterwards what's going to happen in European elections, who is going to be the leader? It's very important, the choice of a leader, but also the. What I can tell you is that the next European Commission will have at least four former prime ministers. So for those who are saying that European Commission is no longer relevant, I can tell you that there is a lot of interest to go to the European Commission. There will be a lot of. There are so many candidates. So the points are it's a position that is not going to be vacant, but I hope that the drive, the culture of the organization will stay for free open societies and free and open economies. I personally will be happy if we could also add. But that depends on the member states at also a more social dimension in many issues. But so far the member states have been extremely resistant to give more, more for instance in social matters to the European Union. And that's why sometimes there is a problem of perception regarding, for instance, the European Union saying that the European Commission is responsible for all these policies, when in fact, as you know, for instance, for the countries and the program, all the decisions have been taken by the euro area, by unanimity, by the euro area countries. The European Commission together with European Central bank and IMF discuss, negotiates as a mandate, but at the end the decisions are taken by member states. But sometimes it's convenient to say it's the Fault of Brussels.
- [68:50]
C
Mr. President, if I may just ask you, smuggle in one very last question. Your successor. What key bit of advice would you give to your successor, who after all that lady or gentleman will have to present themselves to the European Parliament for approval? And is there just one little bit of advice you would give just to ensure they're, you know, just to help them through that, through that difficult moment in their, in their professional lives?
- [69:23]
B
One thing I've already learned in my relatively experienced political life from 10, 10 years in commission, but 12 years also in national government, including India, Foreign Minister and Prime Minister. One thing I've learned is that successors don't like to receive advice from predecessors. There are some politicians that they believe that there was no world before they were born, and I personally believe the opposite. I think there was world before you were born and there will be world after we die. And all this power is a very great, some very often a great illusion. That's my personal position. But okay, so what I'm trying to do, and now very seriously, I've already asked my Secretary General, Catherine Day, to prepare together of course, with the cabinets of all my colleagues in Commission to prepare a kind of a document with options for my successor, also in terms of organizational management. So. But afterwards I will be careful not to say what he or she should do. But these are the options based on our experience. And I'm going to make that handover because I think it's my institutional responsibility to do it. But if you want now a more general thing about advice that I already said, because I understood that some of my colleagues in the European Council, some prime ministers asked me what are the conditions to have success as the president of the Commission? And afterwards they are becoming now candidates. I said three things, three things. First, great physical resistance. Look, sometimes there were Some years I was 250 days out of Brussels, either in Europe or outside because of the summits the United States with Russia, China, Brazil, Africa and seminar. So, first thing, a great capacity, physical capacity to resist. Second, at least as important, great psychological resistance. You cannot imagine what is to not only with the 28 members of the Commission. Chris Patton once wrote, it's famous, his biography, that the President of European Commission is probably the most difficult job in the world. That's what Chris Patton said. Can you imagine? Every week we have to put put 28 colleagues agreeing from 28 countries, from many very different parties. But the culture of the Commission is so strong that in fact we come by consensus. I wish the member States were so quick. But to work not only with the colleagues, to work with the Parliament that is becoming more and more strong in our European architecture and with the member states requires a great deal of patience. I don't know if it was because of that that European Union two years ago received the Nobel Prize for Peace. But certainly, but certainly we deserve the Nobel Prize for patience. The third quality for a president of the Commission, I think, is to love Europe, to believe in what we are doing, to believe in these values, to think that Europe, not long ago we had the Shoah in Europe. Some of the most civilized countries in the world produced the most incredible crimes against humanity. That was Europe 60 years ago. Forty years ago, my country was not a democracy. When I was 18 years of age, I could not read all the books I wanted. I could not hear all the music I wanted. That's why I feel very close to the Poland and new member states, because recently those countries had no freedom. And when we think about where we were in Europe 100 years ago, when we have the First World War or 60 years ago, or 40 years ago, or even 20, and we are now, yes, we have a lot of problems and we are not underestimating. Namely, the biggest problem is unemployment. But I think we should be proud of the way European Union has done and the contribution that European Union has done precisely for peace, for freedom and for justice. So I think this is the basic, basic condition for any Commission present or any person having a leading role in European Union is to be proud to be a European and without arrogance, be able to give also contribution to a better world. I thank you very much for your attention.
- [74:17]
C
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it falls now to the chairman of the lac, Peter Sutherland, to propose the vote of thanks.
- [74:25]
A
It is not always the case that the prevailing temper of debate in the United Kingdom about Europe is both constructive and reasoned. And therefore, it is a particular and encouraging feature of this very remarkable and extremely interesting lecture to have an expression of the nobility of the European cause articulated so clearly to this audience and appreciated so widely by your response. So, on behalf of all of us, I want to thank President Barroso for being with us, for elevating, in my view, the level of debate in what he has said on a matter which is of fundamental importance to all of us, but particularly for the generation of young people who are present in such numbers here this evening. So on your behalf, I thank President Barroso. I ask you to remain seated until President Barroso leaves the theater, but thank you very much indeed for being with us.
- [75:48]
B
Sam.