Speech of the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek given at the conference "Future of the European Union and the position of the Czech Republic" at 9.2.2007

Dear ladies, dear gentlemen,

I had an opportunity to have talks with the German Chancellor on the future of the European integration at the end of January. It was a historical moment, in fact. It was for the first time when somebody asked seriously representatives of the Czech Republic about their opinions of the future character of the European Union. It is for the first time when we enter into starting debate from the very beginning as an equal member.

Our attitude to the European integration can be summarized by two words: more freedom. We do not want to allow the fact, that the new countries of the EU still do not have equal rights as the old ones, to be forgotten in the debate on the new ways of decision-making and voting procedure. We still cannot use four principal union freedoms. Thus, it is logical that this problem annoy us more than Germans or Frenchmen. It is logical that we want first of all to finish the European integration regarding those four principal freedoms. It is logical that we want factual, not just paper, equality.

When I gave a European television an interview, during which I was speaking about those priorities, a journalist had to assure herself, after the finish, what freedoms I had meant. It was not because she did not know them. It just did not occur to her that a European country could felt any problems in this sphere. Unfortunately, even certain Czech politicians, who call the attitude of the government anti-European, do not understand it. They are either mistaken or it is a wrong intention. Nevertheless, senseless dispute about our priorities is not good for our matter.

Or, does anybody think that it is wrong for our citizens when we put emphasis on quality of the EU reform, not only on speed?
Is it wrong if we want the new text of the European Constitution to be simpler, clearer and more comprehensible for people?
Is it wrong if we require the text to specify clearly, unlike the rejected text, competences between the Union and member states?
Is it wrong if we require equal weight of votes of all citizens and all member states?
Is it wrong if we want the reform to enable further enlargement of the EU as a space of freedom and prosperity?
Is it wrong if we feel strongly about transparent and controllable decision-making processes in the EU?
Is it wrong if we expect the new text to remove definitely discrimination of new members of the Union?
Is it wrong if we want the Union to be liberal, strong and able to endure in the global economic competition?
Is it wrong if we want the reform to joint member states, not to separate them?

I often hear that:

"The EU stands on the crossroad", "the EU faces a crisis", "the EU needs a new framework of cooperation", "the EU needs political reform, institutional reform, economic reform ...".

Europe does not face a crisis. If it is so, it is not an institutional crisis, definitely. Successful integration of ten new members and current accession of further two members show that the opposite is true.

It was also shown that new countries did not jeopardize social standards of the old ones, as some people had threatened. The opposite is true.

If you ask me what Europe I would like to have, I answer I want free and flexible Europe - a union where every state chooses its own extent of involvement in common policies of the Union.

But attention, please. If I am speaking about flexible integration, I do not mean the integration of the hard core. I do not mean a situation when a group of states, "avant-guard of states to say it in the Mr. Delors´s language, would progress faster in the integration and concurrently would force indirectly or directly the integration latecomers either to join the core or to rest on a periphery and become members of the second category. It is necessary to refuse this form of an alternative integration, because it would consequently separate states of Europe and form new institutional and economic barriers between them. If I am speaking about flexible integration, I mean a process, during which various member states and group of states choose degree and depth of their involvement in compliance with their interests.

Nobody prevent anybody from deeper integration, but on the other hand nobody forces anybody into deeper integration.

Yes, ways of flexible integration is not explored yet, but their concrete examples exist even now: cooperation in the framework of the Schengen area, the European Currency Union, so called Prüm Treaty on the police and cross-border cooperation or the diplomatic trio of the EU involved in the issue of Iran and its nuclear programme.

We want more variable Europe in which various groups of states follow different interests.

However, it is necessary to point out that for the proper function of this mechanism, a consensus concerning the lowest common denominator, which will define competences and rules valid for all states, must be reached by all participating states.

What should be included in common basis of the flexible European integration?

Should they be existing policies included in the acquis? Or only issues concerning operation of the internal market? Or will we proceed further trying to shift further competences back on national levels?

These are questions about which we must talk with our partners in the EU, I think. Let us overstep bounds of trench warfare regarding the individual stipulations of the document titled "the European Constitution".

Let us try to find a way to quite a new document. Let us abandon our existing points of view of a character of the future European cooperation. I am of the opinion that flexibility is the way, which could enable effective operation of the Union with 27 members and which could also enable to meet obligations regarding further enlargement.

We should reach the state, in which every European member state would be content with its individual depth of integration in the Union.

It will require institutional changes and changes of basic treaties of the Union. It will have to be a gradual change, acceptable for our public and it means it must be a process gradual, performed on all levels of society.

I see Europe as a space of freedom, as a space of peace and prosperity, as the European Coal and Steel Community set fifty years ago. Value of Europe is not in papers, but in jointly shared values. If we have this fact in our minds, we will succeed in overcoming all real and legitimate differences in our interests and opinions.

"E pluribus unum", unity through diversity – that is the motto of the American union. I think that the same is valid for the European Union.