Report by UltraBoyCreates

Europe in the World Lecture 2013

The European Union in the World Herman Van Rompuy President of the European Council

iCES Occasional Paper XIII Institute of Contemporary European Studies

iCES Occasional Paper XIII iCES Occasional Paper XIII © Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Herman Van Rompuy, Aldwyn Cooper, John Drew All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the publishers. ISSN [2040-6517] ISSN [2040-6509] First published in Great Britain in 2014 by the Institute of Contemporary European Studies (iCES), Regent’s University London, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4NS www.regents.ac.uk/research-enterprise/research/research-centres/institute-ofcontemporary-european-studies-ices.aspx

Contents Welcome 2 Professor Aldwyn Cooper Foreword 4 Professor John Drew Lecture: The European Union in the World 6 Herman Van Rompuy Discussion 16

Welcome Professor Aldwyn Cooper Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive, Regentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University London

Mr President, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, alumni, colleagues, students and friends, my name is Aldwyn Cooper and I have the privilege of being the Vice Chancellor of this university. It is my pleasure to welcome all of you here to Regent’s University London. As you can see we are located in one of the most beautiful sites in London, close to all the important commercial, cultural, media and entertainment locations in this extraordinary capital city. Regent’s is a unique university in the United Kingdom, and possibly Europe and even wider. We are only the second private, non-state funded, charitable university to be granted this title in the last several centuries and the first in 30 years. We have an innovative and intensive approach to learning, with a high level of faceto-face instruction supported by the very latest technology. We offer a broad range of degree programmes in subjects as varied as Business to Psychotherapy, Acting to International Relations, Fashion to Banking and on to the Arts. However, the factor that really distinguishes us from other universities is our genuine focus on internationalism. Our student body is drawn from more than 140 countries, with no large numbers from any one of those. We have partnerships with over 160 first-class institutions. In addition to English, we teach nine economically important languages and even more cultures. Many of our students must learn a new language while they are here, and then study abroad in a country that uses that language for two semesters. Our learners work in groups with people from other nationalities so they can learn from each other as well as from their academic tutors. In addition, we organise many different events each year that provide a chance to understand global questions from a global perspective. Of course, Europe and the UK’s position in the EU is an important issue in our debates. It is such an important topic that the university has commissioned 25 expert authors, supported by our research students, to assemble the Regent’s European Report, which we hope presents clear facts on many different aspects of the relationship between the UK and the EU. This report will be launched on 21 October and everybody here tonight will be sent a copy. We are also delighted that each year, with the assistance of the Commission, we are able to hold the Jean Monnet Lectures and the Europe in the World series, of which the event this evening is a part. I would like to hand over to John Drew, our Chancellor and Jean Monnet Professor, to introduce the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

Foreword Professor John Drew Chancellor and Director of the Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University London

A former UK diplomat in Paris, Kuwait and Bucharest, John has held the positions of Director of International Corporate Affairs at Rank Xerox and Director of European Affairs at Touche Ross International. He was the representative of the European Commission in the UK and is the Chancellor, and Director of the Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London. Thank you, Vice Chancellor, and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great privilege for us that you should be here this evening. You have professional jobs or are students very busy working or with families waiting for you, so my introduction will be brief. It is not surprising at Regent’s University that we want to discuss big ideas here; big, global ideas because our students come from all over the world, our staff too, from many different countries. Our values too are global. David Cameron and William Hague have been very busy this last month with vital, short-term issues of European and national foreign policy, at St Petersburg with the G20 and in Vilnius with the European foreign ministers. Our privilege tonight is that we have as our guest someone who has been involved in much of the long-term, as well as the short-term, work in Europe and further afield. I first met our guest when he was a member of the Belgian Senate. When we returned to Brussels the next year he had been appointed Chairman of the Belgian House of Deputies. Another year and he was Belgian Prime Minister. Within a short period of time he became President of the European Council, chairing meetings of the Heads of State and government and in between meeting with leaders across the globe. I once asked him, “Where are you going next?” He replied, “Well, you have invited me to Regent’s University.” We are delighted to welcome Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council to address us.

President Herman Van Rompuy President of the European Council

Herman Van Rompuy is a principal representative of the European Union (EU) on the world stage, and the person presiding over and driving forward the work of the European Council, defining the general political direction and priorities of the European Union. Elected as the first full-time President of the European Council in November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy took office when the Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December 2009. In 2012 he was re-elected for a second term, starting on 1 June 2012 and running until 30 November 2014. At the time of his first election, Herman Van Rompuy was Prime Minister of Belgium. Prior to that he had served in Belgium as Speaker of the House of Representatives (2007–2008) and in several government positions, including as Minister of State (2004) as Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Budget (1993–1999), and Secretary of State for Finance and Small Businesses (1988). A former economist at the National Bank of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy began his political career in 1973 as national vice-president of his party’s youth council. He has held various responsibilities within his party and in the Belgian Parliament, serving in turn as Senator (1988–1995) and Member of Parliament (1995–2009).

The European Union in the World President Herman Van Rompuy It’s always a great pleasure to be in London, and a special pleasure to speak here today at Regent’s University. First of all, I should like to congratulate the institution on this new academic status! I also understand that the elegant buildings where we are gathered originally date back to 1913; opened by Queen Mary herself, for Bedford College. One year before World War I, students and professors working in these buildings certainly lived in another London, another Europe, in another world … 1913, which brought us the parachute, the assembly line and the zip; turmoil in the Balkans and in Mexico … and the first Chelsea flower show. Ladies and gentlemen, this afternoon, as announced, I would like to speak about where Europe finds itself today in the world. And rather than focus upon the heat of the day, in this academic setting I would prefer to use the opportunity to go beyond the headlines and reflect with you on longer-term trends and developments. In this season, foreign affairs summits and fora come thick and fast, between the St Petersburg G20 and next week’s UN General Assembly in New York … But there’s rarely an opportunity to take a step back. A pity, since day-to-day positions and reactions can be outdated quickly, certainly with the current pace of events. So today here with you at Regent’s, I would prefer to try and describe some forces and fault-lines regarding Europe’s place in the world, and how and where to act (or not) as a Union – drawing on the soon-to-be four years I will have spent in my current office. I mentioned Regent’s buildings, not just because of their elegance, but also because the year 1913 is not a bad place to start such an exercise. With the hundred-year anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War approaching – and I know it will be well commemorated in the UK – one can be tempted to draw analogies with the past. Indeed, earlier this year, one European Prime Minister said that in watching rising tensions in Europe, within and between countries, he sometimes felt it was 1913 … Foreign affairs commentators indulge in such parallels. They compare for instance China since 1970 to the former German Empire after 1870: allegedly two rising economic powerhouses keen to challenge the global hegemony of the seas, today the United States, just as back then it was Britain. Their point being that a century ago the resulting tensions brought down the international order. However, I think such parallels miss the point. We

live in a different world. It would make more sense to contrast the belligerence of the Great Powers of the past with the relative restraint of those of today. After all, nowadays, none of the big players (and you can all make your own catalogue) would dare to risk all-out conflict with a country in the same league. Very generally speaking, we have probably more to fear from failed and collapsing smaller states, as hotbeds of terrorism and anarchy, than from direct confrontation between strong, big states. In that sense, 2013 is quite unlike 1913. Bigger players are much more wary to play the war card, more conscious than back then, of their economic interdependence and of the risks of destructive escalation, more appreciative of the international order, however fragile it sometimes seems. And globally, that makes the world a safer place. It is commonplace to compare the situation today with Europe’s clout at the start of the last century: close to 20 per cent of world population, producing close to 40 per cent of the world’s wealth, and ruling over 80 per cent of the world’s land mass. If humanity as a whole were a sports team of 14 people, today only one player would be from Europe … Yet the fact that the half billion people living in EU countries (or 7 per cent of global population) still produce 20 per cent of global wealth is not negligible – it’s more than the US or China. If relative decline there is, it is certainly from a high starting point. And still today, despite the self-inflicted destruction of 1914 to 1945, and despite Communism’s grip on half of Europe for four decades after that, our continent remains by all means unique and privileged for its combination of relative prosperity, freedom, peace and security, as well as equality. It’s always important to keep a sense of proportion! This of course does not mean that I underestimate our other problems, not least high unemployment in some European member countries. In any case, we have all reasons to rejoice for the fact that in the past 20, 30 years, hundreds of millions [of] men and women across the world have made their way out of poverty. It’s unprecedented in human history. The benefits of globalisation are real. And, in a way, it is also the modern way of life we value that is spreading to other parts of the world. Others are making these aspirations their own, in their own way. We do not hold a copyright on how we organise our societies. In some respects, just as two generations ago, decolonisation was also the result of the spread of 19thcentury democratic nationalism to the rest of the world, so globalisation today is shaped by the spreading of a 20th-century vision of open economies and societies. Deep down it’s the same movement.

We still tend to think in terms of emerging economies. But of course it also means emerging powers. Stronger economic weight, quite naturally, crystallises into global political influence, in my view, more so than military might achieve. We’ve seen how this has only accelerated with the global financial crisis. As long as globalisation was seen mainly as an economic process, it appeared as if we could all win. In the new political phase of globalisation, this changes. Politics is also about balances of power. And power is relative. Whereas prosperity is spreading, power is shifting … It further increases the uneasiness in our societies with these developments. Even if I sometimes think that, from bipolar, the world has not become multipolar, but rather a-polar. The West is losing certain monopolies we’ve held for two centuries, economically, politically, militarily. It would be counterproductive to deny it. But, nuance again, the loss of monopoly does not mean the loss of all power. Europe and America still have major assets. Even as happily dethroned copyright-holders, in today’s “open-source” world we continue to perform well. We have our challenges but – as the past few weeks and months have again made clear – the emerging countries, too, face huge internal challenges, political and economic. Most also have to readjust their social and economic models, just as we in the eurozone and the European Union are currently doing. For the countries of Europe, the question is how to deal with these long-term trends and sudden accelerations. How can we continue to defend our interests and values, our societies, in today’s world? Clearly each single European country will come up with its own answers – depending on geography and history, size and strength, and political culture too. All kinds of examples spring to mind! Yet the 28 countries within the European Union provide some of these answers together – as a Union. And we should not underestimate what we can – and what we do – achieve that way. Without Europe, there would be no WTO, no International Court of Justice, no global fight against climate change, no G20. Together we provide more than half of the world’s development and humanitarian aid, making a huge difference from Haiti, to Afghanistan, to Syria.

I know the EU (or Europe) is sometimes derided as somewhat of a “Florence Nightingale”. But soft power is not a dirty word. And we don’t just send nurses and nutritionists, we also send judges and policemen, we send soldiers and marines. We help build statehood, security, the rule of law. As the European Union, we work in places like the Sahel or eastern Congo to combat lawlessness, to restore a sense of justice. The troops of our countries are present in Iraq, Afghanistan and Mali, under the aegis of NATO or the UN, and sometimes that of the EU (as in Somalia). We know the value of acting together. More often than not, what we do together, we do better. What might sometimes slow us down, but what ultimately makes our strength, is that we always strive to set out on a common course when dealing with crisis situations. Take the Middle East Peace Process, or sanctions against Iran’s nuclear endeavours, or our involvement in Libya and Mali: we are as united as can be. Of course, part of our diplomatic coordination takes place in the open, especially when the stakes are high, which may sometimes look confusing. (By the way, this can also be the case in other major democracies.) European countries know it’s worthwhile to talk things through, because the added value of pulling our weight together is huge. Governments recognise that an important part of the work for their citizens’ security and prosperity is best done with their neighbours, their partners. They see that being part of the Union is not about giving up one’s own role, but rather about leveraging strength by aligning positions, pooling resources, acting in the world as a team. In that sense, a country like the United Kingdom has always been a driving force. As I said in February this year in the City of London’s Guildhall: “The United Kingdom’s commercial outreach, its military and diplomatic clout are matched only by few other countries. It is uniquely placed to leverage its own initiatives, and therefore by working jointly has the most to win. For a country like the UK, to make its voice heard in the world, ‘Europe’ does not work as a damper, but as a megaphone.” I was pleased to see, this summer, that the benefits of European cooperation in Foreign Policy and Development are fully recognised in the government-led “Balance of Competences Review”. As Europeans, our joint influence is particularly strong in two areas: trade and our neighbourhood.

Firstly, on trade. We’ve built the world’s largest and most prosperous market, and we’re the most open economy in the world. And let’s call a spade a spade: even in the current economic climate, that still makes Europe a commercial superpower. And we can say this with more confidence, having overcome the existential threats to the eurozone. The huge pull-power we can get from trade works precisely because we wield it together. Pulling apart would weaken our hand, and we know it. Europe has invested a huge deal in multilateral trade. But it’s not a secret that nowadays the multilateral trade agenda is not in good shape. The situation could be worse: 1930s-style protectionism has been avoided, and this is no modest achievement. The most powerful economies in the world, at the St Petersburg G20 two weeks ago, agreed to extend to 2016 their commitment to not introduce any further protectionist measures. But let’s be honest: even if the WTO’s court-like capacity to resolve trade disputes remains an irreplaceable asset, the policy-driving function of the World Trade Organisation is stagnating. Given the economic pressures back home, our countries simply can’t wait until all parties involved get their act together. We can’t afford to forgo the additional growth we can get from better international trade. We remain committed to multilateral trade; in the meantime we are pushing ahead via bilateral and regional deals. Some ambitious ones have already been concluded (like between the EU and Korea) and others are on the way. With Japan, with India, with Canada, with Vietnam … But above all, I am thinking of the transatlantic trade talks, which the United States and the European Union decided to launch, at the G8 in Northern Ireland earlier this spring. This, I think, can be a game changer, not just on both sides of the Atlantic, but worldwide. I am not saying that making it really work will be an easy task – it’s about pushing boundaries further than we ever have before. Both sides will need to make compromises. But pulling this off could change the face of world trade, for the better. Secondly, enlargement. With trade, this is the second area where our joint pulling power can really be felt. For our direct neighbours on the continent, the Union works as a magnet. Enlargement – dear also to successive British governments – is our most successful foreign policy, still today.

After 1989, we’ve helped the countries, who in the Cold War found themselves on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, to transform themselves politically and economically. For sure, they did the work themselves, but our pulling power helped to mobilise the necessary social energy, and to give a shared perspective in a period of turmoil and uncertainty. Today, in Europe, the focus is on the Western Balkans. Giving these countries a firm European perspective has been one of my foreign affairs priorities since the start of my mandate. And the progress is real. Earlier this year, Croatia became the Union’s 28th member. The agreement our High Representative Catherine Ashton brokered between Belgrade and Pristina helped unlock the accession process for Serbia, brought Kosovo closer to the EU and placed Kosovo–Serbia relations on a path towards normalisation. A page has been turned, and hopefully it will trigger a positive dynamic: it is a game changer for the region. Further to our east, with the countries that lie between Europe’s and Russia’s borders (Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus) and in the southern Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), we also share special relationships. At our upcoming Eastern Partnership summit with all six, this November in Vilnius, the stakes will be high. These partners are, as it were, in between two “magnets” and have two relationships that they have to make work. Take for instance Ukraine’s interest in signing an Association Agreement with the EU, confirmed again today, in our view there’s no reason this would damage the country’s long-standing ties with Russia: it’s not necessarily a matter of “either/or”. A word about Turkey. I visited Ankara last May – in fact right before the Taksim square events. The Turkish call for a solid relation with the European Union was very clear. Prime Minister Erdogan summarised his requests with the following words: “Chapters, chapters, chapters” – more negotiation chapters with the EU, as a key motor for reform. Our already-complex relations have obviously been affected by the government’s reaction to popular protests last June. But, post-Taksim, we need to see where things stand and be ready for re-engagement. We have to recognise that, when it comes to the southern shores of the Mediterranean, we do not have comparable pulling power – to say the least. Early in 2011, when the popular uprisings in the Arab world broke out, we were almost surprised that young people in Cairo, Tunis or Benghazi were taking huge personal risks to fight for their rights, for democracy, social justice [and] equality before the law. They were fighting for universal values that we in Europe hold dear, but sometimes almost seem to have lost faith in … A strong wake-up call!

Two and a half years later, the situation is clearly very different. But I continue to believe it is in Europe’s interest, short-term and long-term, to support democracy in the Arab world, as we strive to do. The whole region is undergoing a tectonic shift. It will take time to find a stable equilibrium. But the people will not accept a return to dictatorship. This brings me to a brief word on the issue of the day after all: Syria. After the atrocious chemical attacks of last month, all EU countries agreed that a clear and strong response was crucial and that we must avoid a dreadful precedent being set. Our 28 foreign ministers also underscored, on 7 September, the need to move forward with addressing the Syrian crisis through the UN process. The European Union welcomes the diplomatic opening, which has been created in the Syrian conflict by America and Russia. Now, after the UN report, it’s urgent for the UN Security Council, together with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to take all necessary measures to ensure the swift and secure destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons and programme. At the same time, the international community must concentrate on advancing a diplomatic process that will lead to a political solution. The “Geneva-II” initiative must move ahead swiftly. Europe remains ready to provide all support needed to achieve a political settlement. Ladies and gentlemen, there is something else – speaking about “Europe in the world” – which we tend to underestimate. Our good intentions and noble motives to act are not always perceived as such (this is an understatement). A few months after the 2011 intervention in Libya, which helped to avoid a bloodbath in Benghazi, I remember speaking to a President from an emerging country who blamed the intervention solely on oil and commercial interests. I told him about the scars of Srebrenica … it seemed to him a real eye-opener. In some Arab countries anti-Western sentiment is not uncommon. The most absurd conspiracy theories are widely believed to be true. We cannot just discard such stories as ridiculous, because politics is shaped as much by perceptions as by reality. In Europe, we sometimes overlook the weight of recent history; how people in some parts of the world look at us. Fortunately, also, many in the world greet today’s postcolonial Europe as an ally in the fight for democracy and prosperity. I often see this, for instance last Monday at the conference for Somalia in Brussels, where a New Deal for the Somali was agreed.

These are some of the dilemmas and forces shaping the fast-changing, a-polar and, at times, dangerous world in which we, Europeans, must find our way, and [we] do find it. I still believe Europe, European countries, have a story to tell to the world. With humility. When we talk about tolerance, when we talk about reconciliation, about democracy, we know these are hard-fought. Before we became a continent at peace with itself (and with the world) we paid the heftiest of prices – a price the young students who studied in this building in 1913 were still (if only just) blissfully unaware of. We have left behind us the battles of history between religions, nations, dynasties, ideologies. A hundred years on, we can look at our future with confidence, and selfconfidence, even in these difficult economic times. The world is more open, more connected, it is safer, if still unpredictable. Our role in it is changing, and bound to change further in the decades that lie ahead of us. But we cannot disengage. You will not be surprised if I say that it is my conviction, that the Union which 28 countries have at their disposal, with its flaws and its qualities, always a work in progress, that this Union is an essential means for Europeans to advance in the world, together. Born in 1947, I am a post-war child. If some of you here, like myself, have grandchildren, these children are the third generation who’ve only known peace in Europe. Each generation is responsible for peace in its time, and beyond. We may hold a different place in the world today, but we live in a better Europe and in a better world. That’s why I’m ready to say: yes, humankind can make moral and political progress. That’s why, in these difficult years, I remain a man of hope.

Discussion EU–US Trade Talks The President responded to a question from the floor asking him what he thought the prospects of success were for the TTIP negotiations by saying that, “It is the European Union that is negotiating on behalf of the 28 countries – that’s a very strong point because there is one interlocutor for the United States. Of course the European Commission negotiating for the EU needs always the backing of the Member States but once they have a mandate they have room for manoeuvre so they can really negotiate.” He continued by saying that, “It is too soon to say how long it could take and what the obstacles will be. We know that it will be a compromise, as always in trade negotiations, and we will see more clearly by the end of the year.” He noted that many thought that the negotiations could be concluded in three years but admitted he thought this “rather optimistic but we will see”. But if the agreement could be concluded, Mr Van Rompuy noted that, “It will be the biggest trade agreement ever, between the United States, representing more than 20 per cent of the world GDP, and the EU representing even more than the GDP of the US – so together almost half of the world’s economy. This is a trendsetter, a game changer in international trade agreements. It will not be focused on tariffs because they are already low but it will be focused on regulations and standards and that makes the negotiations even more difficult.” The EU’s Role in the World Asked about the perception 20 years ago that the EU would be a challenger to the United States but now has to deal with the reality that since then we have seen the emergence of China economically and politically, the President said that he recognised the role of perception in influencing the date. “But I always think,” he said, “at the end of the road the truth and the reality prevails but it takes some time. “I think that we never really were a challenger for the role played by the United States or others but we have our own role. We don’t have to look to be first in the world but what we can do is to bring the world closer to our main values – democracy, the rule of law, human rights – and also to defend our values. “The new Europe, after the colonial period, is a Europe which can emphasise, much more than in the past, our values, and we are appreciated not only because we have the largest Single Market in the world. Of course this really is an asset; if we open our markets we have 500 million people with high purchasing power, and other countries are looking for closer relations with us because we have that strength in our economy and we have that

market at our disposal. But for many other countries, and I mention Somalia but I could mention also the Sahel region and other parts of the world, we are the main development partner. Half of development aid is delivered by the European Union so if we compare this with other major players on the world scene, we have made a huge difference. For instance in Africa, there we are the provider of health services, of education, what we can call soft power. If you compare this with other major players in the world, who are focused on infrastructure, this is inspired by their interests; when we are investing in education and in health it is more inspired by our values.” The President went on to make the point that the EU had to defend its interests at an international level in bodies such as the G20, the WTO and the UN Conference on Climate Change. He admitted that the EU had been affected for a time by the sense that it was not tackling its own problems in the eurozone: “When we went to the G20, or even the G8 meetings, Europe was in some way blamed for hampering economic growth worldwide because we could not solve our own problems, especially in the eurozone.” But that problem no longer existed, as he put it: “When I was in St Petersburg a few days ago Europe was not even mentioned; we have overcome the existential threat to the eurozone. The problems are not over but the existential threat – this threat is over. The discussion a year ago was not about whether the eurozone would collapse, that was for sure, but when.” He hoped that as a result, “We can again, hopefully, play a more positive role in the economic field but also when we have solved our economic problems – and we are on the way – we can speak with more credibility on a lot of other issues and we are less focused on our own problems.” The Middle East Peace Process & Syria Turning to the Middle East peace process and the conflict in Syria, a subject raised by one of the lecturers at the university, President Van Rompuy acknowledged that it was a long time since the Oslo agreements had taken the Israel–Palestine peace process forward. But he welcomed the new initiative under way. On Syria, he emphasised the need for a political solution: “But we know that looking at the region not only do you have to find a political solution for the Syrian crisis, because there is no military solution, but also that the region (and the world) won’t be fully stable unless we have a solution to the nuclear issue with Iran and breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process”. He hoped that what had been brokered on the chemical weapons in Syria was, “in some way the start of a much bigger process of negotiations”.

The Eurozone & Austerity Challenged by a student at the university over his suggestion that the eurozone crisis had passed its worst point, given the 65 per cent youth unemployment in Greece, the President was told that, “European austerity is destroying lives.” Mr Van Rompuy reminded his audience that he had said, “[it was] not that the economic crisis was behind us, but that the existential threat on the eurozone is over; and that is quite a different matter. We survived as a monetary union.” But he had mentioned in his speech that, “The economic crisis and the huge unemployment in some of our Member States, and I mentioned it explicitly, are not over.” A lot more needed to be done in the eurozone and the Union as a whole. He went on to say, however, that there was also a lot that Member States had to do themselves. These efforts were resulting, “at least in 2014, in positive economic growth, too slow, too weak but at least we finally have positive economic growth in all our Member States with one exception, Cyprus”. He said the Union would do all it could to see that this was “not a one-off event” but the crisis had been “extremely deep. We had artificial economic growth in the first decade of the eurozone based on an increase in public and in private debt and we neglected structural reforms.” These reforms were now underway, but leading to “huge sacrifices … in some of our Member States”. It had taken more time than expected, “But we have had to build a life boat in the midst of a storm, and it takes more time to get results in some Member States.” Turning to the programmes of fiscal consolidation, he said, “You cannot solve a sovereign debt crisis by creating more sovereign debt. You can discuss about the pace of fiscal consolidation but it is an inevitable process.” He pointed out that he became the Minister for the Budget in Belgium when that country had a deficit of 135 per cent of GDP: “We survived all this but it took a high price also in my own country to adjust, to adapt, to make structural reforms so the economy became more resilient,” he told the audience. The penultimate question from the floor was about Germany’s role in the EU in the future. The President began his response by noting that Germany is “the biggest country and the strongest economy” in the EU. But I never forgot what Helmut Kohl had said at the time of German reunification: “I want a united Germany in a more united Europe. That is the best guarantee,” he said, “both for Germany and Europe.”

The President went on to point out that Germany had taken the major step of giving up the Mark in the Maastricht Treaty. He went on to say that Germany is “playing an important role in the European Union because they are 80 million and they have the biggest economy, but behind all this there is a philosophy, the philosophy of a united Germany in a more united Europe”. On the question of how to reassure people in the United Kingdom on their own role and the role of the European Union, in the future, Herman Van Rompuy wondered out loud whether this was the main concern of the British people. He thought perhaps that, “People are more concerned across the planet, across the 28 EU countries, about the future of their jobs, their prosperity, their social security and so forth.” Referring to the report of the British Government’s balances of competences review on foreign policy, the President underscored that “The role of the European Union is: what we do together, we do it better.” He thought the greater leverage that came from EU membership was useful, not just for countries such as Britain and France, but for all the other Member States as well. He added that, “In the world as it is today even for a country with the tradition, the history, with the military power of the United Kingdom, in the world of today we need more … The European Union is the most appropriate instrument to have influence in the world, and this is a strong plea for that kind of common approach.”