"Everything but the Institutions"; Iceland in a Post Enlargement European Union

It has perhaps become rather too common in the European Union, particularly over the last year, to talk of everything as being 'historic'. Yet whatever one's point of view, the enlargement of the European Union at one hit, from 15 to 25 countries, must be an historic event of some significance. It can be felt in the Parliament; there is a sense of expectation, of excitement, especially against the backdrop of the countries involved from Central and Eastern Europe, at last freed from the dead weight of communism. Our final parliamentary session of this mandate before the elections will be in May, when the accession members will join us as full members. It will be emotionally charged; one that I would not miss for anything. It will be historic!

Your country of course has a tremendous sense of history, but perhaps one that has always been of a somewhat vicarious nature, as geography has put you on the periphery of Europe, on the margin. Like my own country, you are an island which results in our own insular view of affairs taking place elsewhere. You have of course a great tradition of story telling or narrative history, but I wonder if it is in the role of onlookers only that you really wish to contemplate Europe and the events taking place there this summer. I know when my own country failed to join the euro - the Single Currency - on 1st Jan 2001 I felt we were missing out, missing out on a celebration, missing a moment in history!

When I was asked to consider the title of this talk, I know that many have already used the idea of life on the margins or the periphery of Europe before. I wanted a new image which reflects my strong view of your voiceless position from the perspective of a European parliamentarian. Then I attended a talk by a Commission representative on the post-enlargement policy of 'Wider Europe - New Neighbours' where he used the phrase in relation to the participation of non-member countries 'everything but the Institutions'. You may know there used to be a pop group called 'Everything but the Girl', I think the image is clear enough! You come along, do as you are told, but don't expect to be able to actually achieve anything, shape anything, or to actually have any meaningful participation. No Icelandic voice in the Council, no Commissioner for Iceland, no Members of the Parliament for Iceland. Yes, that's what everything but the institutions means. No influence - you take what we decide.

The last time I spoke to an audience in Iceland, about a year ago, I ended by considering the nature of your own democracy. As a visitor I have been awed by visiting the site of your original parliament, the oldest parliament in the world where the closeness to the people is inspired by the annual recitation of a third of the law. You have traditions of democratic involvement which run deep. Against this heritage, it is unthinkable to me as a parliamentarian that you should wish to continue to disenfranchise yourselves in relation to European development. Of course this must be your choice; I can only share with you my views.

I have mentioned 'Wider Europe - New Neighbours', so let me give you a flavour of where we may be going post enlargement. What is the next move and what will be the implications for the EEA/EFTA countries such as yourselves? You may or may not be amused, or indeed perhaps alarmed, to know that when the Parliament first considered the Commission proposals in this matter, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland were grouped together with Andorra, San Marino and the Vatican City!! The so-called Lilliputian countries! I doubt that is the company you see yourselves keeping but beware, not very many people in the European Institutions understand the EEA and how deep and important your relationship with Europe is. We got the report changed, but, well, I cannot be on the watch for you all the time in the Parliament!

Then I recall a conversation with a Commission official when you were being a little difficult about your financial contribution last year. 'Why bother with them', he said, 'sat up there in the far north with their fish and small population, they don't need us and we don't need them?' 'It's not worth the trouble.' So, should the Norwegians leave you alone in the EEA, don't expect a lot of sympathy from the direction of the Commission if you need to rearrange the EEA agreement. The immediate post enlargement concerns will be with Ukraine and Moldavia and the so-called Euro-Med area and beyond into North Africa. I don't see much enthusiasm for revisiting the EEA agreement; indeed I don't see any interest or talk about it at all. So from May onwards the European Union will have changed out of all recognition, but your relationship with us will be static, not up for change. Maybe that's acceptable to you.

There seems little doubt or argument that Iceland's participation in the EEA has brought major benefits in terms of modernising and liberalising your economy. I suspect that as in my own country even those that are sceptical about the European Union accept that the Internal Market has been as success. The difference is of course in my country we are able to be part of the legislative process that formulates all the Internal Market Regulations and Directives, all the Community Law in this field which you have to just accept as it is and apply, the, literally, thousands of instruments. Now of course the Internal Market is a work in progress in that it is still on-going. We are still, and will continue to churn out new legislation in Brussels to take down barriers to trade and to try to get the market to function better. The challenge post enlargement will be twofold: to maintain the pace and to ensure compliance or enforcement. The latter will be extremely important or we will lose the very benefits that Europe has actually been able to deliver for us. Ironically, yourselves and Norway have in the recent past often been at the top end of the score-board for implementation; the laggards are in fact the original six Member States! So all this talk of a two speed Europe with France and Germany forging ahead, seems a bit unlikely when one looks at the reality. I know there is a view in some places that, post enlargement, the pace of European development will slow and that this may represent an opportunity for countries like your own to board a rather slower moving carriage somewhere at the back of the European high speed train, should you of course wish to.

In a sense many are looking for ways at getting at the bits of European integration they would like to participate in, like the Internal Market, whilst perhaps trying to avoid bits of legislation they don't like or to evade making their full financial contribution - the UK rebate was a bad precedent in the respect. Of course it cannot work like this. If everyone picked and mixed in this way the whole construction would pretty soon fall apart.

In this sense the Swiss experience is an interesting example. Of course, having declined to join the EEA but still having a full membership application on the table, the Swiss government has sought alternative methods to gradually draw closer to the European Union in the face of an increasingly sceptical public opinion at home. The method it has chosen is by way of a number of bilateral sectoral accords or agreements on issues that relate to the Internal Market. So, for example, in the first set of seven accords, which came into force in June 2002, there was agreement on free movement of people. This shows how difficult it is to take just a part of the acquis for, of course, the next step was for Switzerland to want to participate in Schengen and other systems which relate to border control. So once you start to take a part of Europe you tend to find that you need the next bit and then the next. Of course Switzerland is now still finalising the second set of seven bilateral accords with the Union. But this also imposes a huge burden on the administrations as there has to be a mixed committee to administer each agreement. You cannot tell me that the Union will ever contemplate that sort of relationship with all its new neighbours; it would be completely untenable.

Of course if you adopt one of these relationships with the Union, what does this mean for getting your voice heard when you have access perhaps to everything but the institutions? Let's look at the Swiss experience. Allow me to give you two examples, one negative, one positive. Switzerland is very proud of its tradition of direct democracy, its use of peoples' initiatives and referendums which some feel would be threatened by membership of the Union. Yet Switzerland's federal constitution, with its respect for linguistic differences and the role of regional governments and the power of the citizen, has much to offer the EU. Especially an EU that has been engaged in drawing up its own new constitution in the Convention. Of course the Swiss like yourselves had no seat at the table at the Convention.

That did not stop a number of them trying to influence the process, by offering their experience. To my utter amazement, it actually worked. When a group of Swiss campaigners came to see me to say they had the idea to get a Europe wide right of peoples initiative into the draft constitution, I thought there was no chance. Yet have a look at Article 46. There it is and no-one has spoken of trying to take it out. It gives the citizens of Europe, raising one million signatures in sufficient member states, the same right to initiate legislation as the Parliament. Under this article, our citizens would be able to move Europe. This really could bring Europe closer to the people and there are already NGOs who would like to use the facility. This I can tell you is more than we have in my own country where petitions sit on shelves and MPs have win in a ballot for the right to initiate a piece of legislation - which will probably be talked out in any case. But this was achieved by some enterprising Swiss working from the outside with some of us on this inside!

On another issue the Swiss have had a more dispiriting experience, in wanting to promote their financial services industry. They want to be part of the Internal Market in this area, but 'no' said the Commission 'unless we have some movement on banking secrecy'. At one point, Commissioner Bolkestein even threatened sanctions against them - a bit extreme, normally reserved for pariah states. But life on the outside can be tough sometimes - when you are just trying to get the choice morsels that you want, don't expect the Commission to bend the rules.

For another example of getting your voice heard from the outside, let me turn to your Norwegian neighbours. Clearly, over the last year in Norway, there has been a rising tide of enthusiasm for the EU, except in the Storting where they do not want to talk about it. That has also created an interest in turn in what is going on in Europe. The Norwegians have been most active in sending all sorts of visitors groups to the Parliament: farmers, businessmen, civil servants, fishermen, all sorts. I seem to get to speak to them all! They want to know if and how they can influence our decision-making. Then the other week I had a meeting about a particular piece of legislation with some Norwegian officials. They said they had drafted an amendment and, rather coyly, they handed me a folder - could I perhaps table it? As it happened I could.

However let us examine this relationship. Officials from a sovereign state have to come to a parliamentarian from another country to cautiously ask if they can try to get an amendment tabled to a piece of legislation that will have direct effect in their country without any debate. In effect, they are demeaned to the role of lobbyist and their citizens deprived of any democratic representation or input. This is what I have called the double democratic deficit. If you think the EU is undemocratic, how much more undemocratic is this sort of palaver that those of you on the outside are forced into? Everything but the institutions? They are reserved and, from all I have heard, will continue to be reserved for members only.

Now, of course, this debate about democracy can take different forms and there are those at the extreme end of euro scepticism who see the European Union as the anathema of democracy. Of course, we are approaching the European Parliament elections so these people now get active in the UK. I had a leaflet appear through my door the other day from an organisation calling itself UK Betrayed, apart from the fact that it was badly written and poorly laid out to the extent I suspect most people would have thrown it in the bin, it also displayed a complete lack of understanding of how the EU works. It merely played on peoples' fears that they are being governed from elsewhere by foreigners. Of course, in your case, as I have outlined above, in certain areas this could be the case; in my own country we do actually have representation and a voice throughout the institutions.

Ends.