Date: 28 June 2005
 
Speaker: H.E. Rocco Antonio Cangelosi, Permanent Representative of Italy to the EU
Chair: Baron Philippe de Schoutheete de Tervarent, Member of the CEPS Board of Directors
 
Ambassador Cangelosi opened the meeting by underlining the timeliness of this debate as well as its inherent difficulty. The events of the European Council of 16/17th June had underlined that Europe was in deep crisis. This was not only with reference to the recently failed referenda on the European Constitution but also a general atmosphere of uncertainty about the finality of the European project. In order to prevent the imminent death of the Constitutional idea but also in order to reconnect the discussion with the people of Europe, political leaders at the Council had decided to launch a period of reflection that was hoped to clarify the contents of the European project and infuse it with the fresh political impetus to push reform forwards. The failure to come to a financial agreement at the Council had been somewhat more unexpected and subsequently underlined a sense of crisis for the EU.
 
In order to make the period of reflection a success, it is  necessary to take account of popular fears connected to issues such as enlargement, especially the membership of Turkey, unemployment and a general loss of identity in a globalising world. It would now be necessary to explain more fully the content of the Constitutional Treaty and develop a vision of the future EU. However, this would take time and change was not to be expected before the series of new elections had passed in the member states by 2007.
 
In case the ratification process could not continue, it would also be possible to try to save some parts of the Constitution. However, Ambassador Cangelosi highlighted the difficulty of such an undertaking, given that the Constitution had been the result of a precarious political compromise that would be difficult to unravel and realise only in part. The other alternative would be to continue on the basis of the Nice Treaty, but this also would be unsatisfactory, given the cumbersome mechanisms for an enlarged Europe of 25 it provides.
 
Enlargement would now pose an important challenge for the EU. Inevitably the process would slow down as a result of the current crisis and more scrutiny would be applied to the accession criteria of new member states. The constitutional project had highlighted the incompatibility of parallel deepening and widening of the EU. Nevertheless, the EU would lose much of its moral credibility should it stop the enlargement process, which formed an important part of the European vision of stability and prosperity.
 
According to Cangelosi, the British Presidency promised a real hope for innovation in the EU political process. Above all economic growth and unemployment would have to be tackled; modernisation of industry would also be crucial. A Europe of the Future would have to be designed, one that connected with its citizens. This would of course not happen over night.
For the short term, the Ambassador outlined three steps forward: Firstly he stated that the British rebate had become obsolete. It would either have to be frozen or abolished entirely. Secondly a wide discussion on the CAP would need to be launched, finding new financial instruments for rural assistance and consumer protection. Thirdly a robust cohesion policy would have to devised to integrate the EU’s regions better.
 
Apart from policy reform, however, the EU was also in need of stronger institutions to lead the EU forward. Finding its direction in the 21st century was therefore crucial.  While the recent EU summit had been compared by many observers to the battle of Waterloo, the spirit of wartime now lay well behind us. It would now be the shared responsibility of member states and the institutions to proceed in a constructive attitude geared towards producing longer term results.