Constitution for Europe: what could it mean for the EEA?

Thank you for inviting me to your 10th birthday party. This is your celebration. Through your unique and structured relationship with the EU over the last 10 years you have enjoyed access to the benefits of the growing Internal Market on 'almost' equal terms with Member States. It has, I think we can say without qualification, been a positive experience all round, assisting the development of the home economies in the EEA/EFTA states and on the EU side broadening even further the spread and extent of the Internal Market, a market now the biggest in the world. As an aside it is interesting to note that a British newspaper carried an article just last week about the numbers of British people buying property in Reykjavik. At the same of course we are aware too of Icelandic businesses buying up sections of Britain's high streets.

But, and I hate to spoil the party, but there has to be a 'but'. As you celebrate your 10 years, of course next week the EU moves on to the next stage in its own development with the formal signature of the Constitution (Constitutional Treaty) in Rome. In contrast, your own relationship with the Union has remained, and appears set to remain, static under the same terms upon which it was set up 10 years ago. Over the last years you have had to relate to, or interface with, a continually changing entity and now, with the opening of this latest chapter, the task looks set to become even more challenging.

So let me start by making this clear: this is your birthday party, but next week it will be our constitution. I could not help noticing in the conference paper on this topic, the recurring phrases, the EEA EFTA will have to 'follow these developments closely', or 'will have to keep an eye on this' and other phrases to this effect. You are, I think, in your own words 'bystanders', onlookers on the main drama which is unfolding elsewhere.

I have tried to envisage what this might feel like, or at least to portray an analogous situation. Let me try this one: all of us as Europeans are closely watching the US presidential elections, whatever our views, whatever the outcome we know it will affect our lives (and polls show just how engaged the people of Europe are) - yet we have no vote. We are without influence. We can only watch and wait and then try to relate to the consequences.

You have asked me to speak about EEA/EFTA and the Constitution for Europe. Let me divide my remarks into two sections: Firstly, process, that is the Convention, the agreement by Member States and lastly the ratification process by national referendum or other means. Secondly, the content of the Constitution and its implications for EEA EFTA.

In both of these contexts I wish also to draw a distinction between what I will call economic Europe and the democratic European Union to which we aspire!

We had to prepare the EU for this current enlargement. The old intergovernmental method at the Nice summit quite clearly failed to deliver the necessary outcome. It failed to deliver a framework that would be a Europe closer to the people, closer to its citizens. This is why the Convention method was so important drawing in for the first time to the European treaty writing process, parliamentarians, both European and national, including those from the acceding states and, of course, representatives from civil society. Representatives of the EEA EFTA states were not of course part of this process in any sense, not even as observers - which some of us might have favoured.

If you wanted to try to influence the process at all it had to be from the outside. I can point to some success in this respect. The Swiss, for example, through some of their embassies and citizens did much to engender debate around the subject of Swiss experience of democracy, both federal and direct. This was with some success given that we now have included a Europe-wide right of citizen's initiative. Yet of course this could only happen if it struck a chord with like-minded people within the Convention process.

The Convention has basically drawn up the plan for the governance of the enlarged Europe; a Europe that tries to draw closer to its citizens. It's about democracy. It is not just about economics and the Internal Market. The way these will be legislated for is laid out in the content. All this, sadly, was a process of which you were not part and which paid little attention to the needs or aspirations of EEA/EFTA.

Following the work of the Convention we then moved on to a period where the agreement of the Member States had to be obtained on the Convention draft. I think there were many times over the last year when we thought the process would fail and I think that we are all grateful to the Irish Presidency for the work they put into this. The signing on 29 October sees the culmination of this process. Again I have to emphasise a process which left you entirely on the outside of what was finally being agreed.

Now we move into the ratification stage, with the first two national referendums, in Spain and Portugal, fixed for the early part of next year. Some, like in my own country, are a movable event at the government's pleasure which may not take place until the spring of 2006 (some of us wonder if at all). This is again a process which you will have to watch. More importantly, your citizens will have to watch our citizens accept or reject a constitution which will decide how legislation that will come into force in your countries in the future will be made. This is, of course, much more than watching the election of a foreign president whose actions will have indirect consequences -he will not ever be part of the internal legislative process in our countries, hopefully!

I wonder how would you vote? How would your citizens vote? After all you supported the enlargement process despite declining to join yourselves. I sometimes think it might be quite fun if a group started a citizen's initiative in Switzerland for a referendum on the Constitution and if I was being mischievous, I could say that I rather suspect the Swiss would approve it for Europe whilst still declining to join yet!

On the serious side there is no doubt that the ratification process will not be any less straight forward than what has gone before. I have no doubt that there will be a least one 'no' vote, that is another Irish situation and we will have to find a way of dealing with it. This indeed will be a political test for the new Europe; can we bring our citizens with us? In moving so clearly from what has been a Europe based on an Internal Market ethos, the European Union has of course long done more, but this has nearly always been the underpinning justification certainly for all the legislation which you take. Now however we will clearly and openly go further.

Let me take as an example the current proposal from the Commission which we are considering in the Parliament for a Directive on Services. In Internal Market terms this is perhaps as important and aspirational as 1992 was in relation to the market in goods, but this applies to services. However, such a far reaching directive will all so have a knock-on effect into the private civil law regimes of Member States and indeed into the provisions of their administrative and criminal law systems. This goes far beyond the merely economic and, of course, the proposal has EEA relevance; it is causing huge debate amongst our trade unions and others. And what part will you or your citizens be able to play in this - technically none?

Now for the content of the Constitution, I want to look at this in general terms, in terms of where the decision making power goes, because this is what will impact on your relationship with the EU and your ability and opportunities to influence policy and legislation.

Arguably, the Council emerges from the process somewhat strengthened. Your interface with Council meetings is sporadic, limited to specific agenda items often pushed to the end - sometimes decided before your arrive. A phenomenon that of course even some Member States are now experiencing where like my own they are non Euro zone members and excluded from some discussions. I can tell you it is not a comfortable situation to be excluded from such centrally important economic decision making.

National parliaments, for the first time, are given a role, a stake in the legislative process, albeit an entirely negative one - to press the pause button if they do not like the look of a Commission proposal and where three national parliaments act together. The good thing is at last this means national parliamentarians have a reason to look at European legislation at the beginning of the process rather at the end as happens in my own country and many others. It may, just may, help the quality of national debate on European issues. However, this new development will not help you at all. Arguably it just adds another dimension to the process for you to try to relate to. Of course you can use other interparliamentary organisations to try to work with member state national parliaments with whom you have common cause. But what it will not do is bring a public debate home to your parliaments about EU legislation that you will still have just to accept.

The European Parliament gains further rights of co-decision even in the areas of agriculture and fisheries. I foresee that the work of our interparliamentary delegation should become more political and that we need to structure our agendas to enable real debate about legislative files we are actually dealing with. Yet still you will not actually be able to vote - you rely on our interests coinciding with yours. I know I have seen an ever increasing flow of visitors from your countries to my office, such that I have been variously called the nearest thing to a Norwegian in the European Parliament, the MEP for Oslo South and so-on, but the bottom line is I have my own voters as do all the MEPs who take an interest in you, it is to them that our first loyalty lies.

The disappointment is that for countries that have high standards of transparency and democracy, you are increasingly forced to use backdoor means to influence a legislative process that is increasingly removing itself from your grasp. I have told before the story of a government official from one of your countries who quite properly, having no other route in, asked me to file an amendment to a proposal going through parliament which as it happened I could. You are thus reliant on the good will of parliamentarians from other countries which is a very odd version of democracy.

Then let me add a last element. Europe's citizens too will receive the right to initiate legislation and planning on this under way. Indeed I hosted a meeting in Brussels only last week, where we had some 90 participants to consider with parliamentarians and Commission officials how this clause might be implemented. This could lead to a real European demos. Your citizens can only watch from the side lines as Europe citizens propose legislation for them!

What I have not mentioned is the Commission, perhaps the institution you have the greatest interface with. Most of the officials who originally negotiated the EEA agreement are long gone, so there is not some much experience or interest in it. I will mention the Commission only with regard to its orientation which post enlargement is to our new neighbours to the east and south. Indeed, in the debate about Wider Europe at a certain point the EEA/ EFTA countries were mentioned in the same breathe as Andorra and the Vatican City! Re-negotiation, renewal, up-grade, up-date of the EEA agreement is not on the agenda nor likely to be.

In this new set of structures and power relationships you will have to find new pathways and new relationships to get your voice heard. The irony is that as Europe puts its house in order to become more democratic, this in turn makes your situation less democratic. If the outcome in terms of benefit to your economies is positive, perhaps there is no reason to worry, but it seems a difficult argument to sustain vis a vis your citizens.

Permit me one final observation about small countries. It is a theme I see recurring in the conference documents and elsewhere and also was a discussion that haunted the debate in the Convention and between Member States.

Let me take you to a land - let's call it Y. It has a population of 5 million people, with 8 universities, an archbishop, coal mines, steel mills, textiles, farming, cliffs, moors, dales, large cities, small market towns, fishing, financial and legal services. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists. But this land has only 6 MEPs compared to Finland exact same size which has 14 MEPs. It has no Commissioner and no seat at the Council table, no judge in the ECJ. Why? Well this 'land' is in fact not a 'country'. It is the region of Yorkshire which I represent. So do let any body tell me that small countries have no possibilities. In many sense they are over represented if I compare it to the opportunities available to the voters in my own region.

Ten years ago I was sat in a meeting in my home city of Hull having been asked to speak, as a lawyer, about the implications of the EEA for our local economy and business. I did not imagine ten years ago that I would be an MEP or that the European Union would be where it is today. I have no doubt that the next ten years will be equally, if not more, challenging and fast moving for us all. You have my word that those of us in the European Parliament through the delegation which I am honoured to chair for the next few years will do our best to give wider and louder voice to your aspirations and views in so far as you wish us to. This, however, is always subject to the constraint that we are part of the Union and you are not.

I find it strange that there are voices in my country that wish to take us back to your form of relationship with the EU. Just trade so they say. Well I guess we could try that. We could all go back to individual bilateral arrangements, but would not common sense eventually drive us to re-create something that looked very like the EU we now have! I rather suspect so. I could say that you are able to participate in our internal market because we have had the courage to create it.

So let me wish you a very happy 10th birthday celebration, but perhaps you will excuse me if I do not raise a glass to the next ten years of the EEA/EFTA. Not out of disrespect but because I sincerely hope that the coming years will bring us a better basis on which to work together.

Ends.