UNITED NATIONS - / MaximsNews Network / 25 June 2009 - The following is the full-text and video of the remarks by Glenys Kinnock, UK Minister for Europe speaking about the challenges that Europe faces in the coming years at Chatham House, London, on June 2009 [Check against delivery]:

"It probably goes without saying that I am proud to be here today, as Minister for Europe in Gordon Brown’s Government.

I believe I have the very serious task, in company with my colleagues in the Government, of upholding the interests of our country in our continent, and of contributing to good quality political and legislative decisions and actions by the European Union.

I believe I also have the duty, with the rest of the Government, of working to increase knowledge about, and interest in, the EU.  I do not regard that to be a partisan obligation; I consider it to be a civic responsibility – and I will try to fulfil it, in the words of a former BBC Director General, with “a bias in favour of understanding”.

If I had ever had any doubts about the difficulty of putting the pragmatic case for the necessity and utility of engagement in Europe, they would have been eradicated by the experiences on the campaign trail in the weeks before the June 4 European Parliament elections.

I understand the anger generated by the expenses saga which dominated the election, and I am certain that the issues need rapid and profound reforming responses.  Once again, however, it meant that there was no public focus on the vital issues at the heart of the election. 

The results of the poll reflected that:  65 out of every hundred people on the electoral register didn’t vote.

Some will have consciously abstained as a way of objecting at the content and conduct of contemporary politics.  Others will be habitual non voters:   a riddle to resolve in any case for any election.  But the grave reality of June 4th and other EP elections is that many in the UK and elsewhere simply did not see the relevance to their lives and futures of casting a vote in the European Parliamentary elections. 

Addressing that is a challenge to me, to the UK Government, to the governments and political parties of all the other 26 Member States; and to the Commission and the Parliament as Institutions. 

I do not believe that anyone in politics, business, academia or the media yet has a comprehensive answer to that challenge despite years of argument, experiment, reasoning and polemic. 

The origins of the EU I do think, however, that answering the demands of relevance must start with illuminating the reasons for the existence of the EU.  There are many starting points for that narrative.  I’ll simply take today’s date:  on 18th of June, 1940, Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons in the wake of the fall of France to the Nazis.  In a speech that is famously remembered as one of supreme defiance, Churchill told the wartime generation that their struggle would be seen as “their finest hour”. Less remembered, but equally defiant, was his pledge that Britain would fight on, so that “all Europe may be free”.   At the time such a prospect seemed to be beyond the realms of possibility.  But that vision of a free and peaceful Europe proved not to be a mirage.   In the decades since that speech, Europe has been transformed – first by victory in war, then by the development of what John Hume called “history’s most successful peace process”.   And, most recently, by extending the prospects of higher standards of living and liberty which helped bring about the rejection of Soviet Communism.   That now fosters the evolution of economies, societies and rights in the States seeking membership.

Recent News: UK Foreign Office: ••• LORD MALLOCH-BROWN: INTERNATIONAL DAY IN SUPPORT OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE: 27/06/2009 (MaximsNews Network) ••• UK'S GLENYS KINNOCK, MINISTER OF STATE FOR EUROPE: "THE CHALLENGE OF EUROPE": VIDEO & FULL-TEXT: 25/06/2009 (MaximsNews Network) ••• UK' FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND: "EUROPEAN RENEWAL AMIDST GLOBAL ADVERSITY": VIDEO & FULL-TEXT: 24/06/2009 (MaximsNews Network)  ••• LORD MALLOCH-BROWN ON THE MURDER OF OMAR HASHI ADEN, MINISTER OF SECURITY, SOMALI TRANSITIONAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: 18/06/2009 (MaximsNews Network) ••• LORD MALLOCH-BROWN: "AFRICA, WEATHERING THE STORM AND CHARTING RECOVERY": 09/06/2009 (MaximsNews Network) ••• LORD MALLOCH-BROWN TRAVELS TO AFRICA TO FOCUS ON THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC CHALLENGES DUE TO GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: 08/06/2009 (MaximsNews Network)

Some, of course, will say that current generations will not be intrigued, let alone inspired, by reminders of a previous era.  I think they are wrong.  I think that because I am certain that people who are still fascinated by the agony and bravery of war seven decades ago can be stimulated and engaged by the adventure of establishing peace, security and prosperity in the years since that war.   

I believe that history can, and must, be mobilised to explain the conditions and causes which made systemic co-operation first feasible, then achievable, then conventional in a continent which had been the most war-faring in the world.

I am not, of course, suggesting that interesting history alone could make a compelling case for Europe.  I argue only for history as a base for understanding of the appalling costs and dangers of the division of Europe, and the benefits of security produced by co-operation and pragmatic, partial integration. 

The Contemporary Case for Europe

I therefore focus on the contemporary case, and on three particular challenges facing Europe:  securing economic recovery; tackling climate change, and tackling global poverty and conflict. 

It is not presumptuous in my view to say that the EU has unique capacity to provide leadership to all the World on all these issues.  I also believe that for that capacity to be properly used, the UK must show leadership within the EU. 

The EU and the Economy

Clearly – as international experts acknowledge – the UK is at the forefront of efforts to deal with the first ever globalised recession.  But whilst the fact that the recession spread faster and wider than any previous slowdown is fascinating in a macabre sort of way, the more significant reality is that the anti-recessionary responses by governments in the EU has been bigger and more co-ordinated than any international reaction in history.   It can fairly be said that the British Prime Minister was central to those efforts.  He made the argument that the more that States acted together, the greater would be the beneficial multiplier effect in every economy.

Last December’s agreement by EU Heads of Government, on a 200 billion Euro economic recovery package that combined national and EU spending was predicated on that reality. In fact, EU governments have now contributed a combined total of over 400 billion Euro.  The March European Council endorsement of the goals of the G20 London Summit, and agreement to provide a 75 billion euro injection to the International Monetary Fund provides evidence of the same attitude of co-operation. 

The conclusion to be drawn is obvious; the EU, acting collectively, amounts to more than the sum of its parts. 

It might have needed a shocking crisis to prove that beyond any doubt but it is now a recognised reality, and that collective action must be sustained if we are to continue to build a recovery, build stable growth, and combat global poverty.   That is why the economic recovery will be a key part the discussion amongst EU Heads of Government at today’s European Council.

Climate Change

The sudden shock of the economic crisis must not be allowed to distract us from the urgent challenge of tackling climate change.  We need to act now if we are to keep global average temperature increases within the 2 degrees threshold - which is what we need to do if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.  It is a massive task:  just today I see that the Met Office has forecast that the average summer temperature in the UK will rise by at least two degrees in the next 30 years.

Accumulated greenhouse gas emissions are already causing floods, droughts, rising sea levels, and changes to weather patterns.  The world’s poorest people, as we know, are losing the rainfall, the land, the biodiversity and the seasonal predictabilities on which their lives depend.  It is a deep injustice that the poor are hit the hardest while having the least responsibility.

Climate change, as Ed Miliband has said, is the greatest example in history of global interdependency, in its effects, and in what we must do to prevent it.   That is why the December meeting in Copenhagen, when world leaders will come together to negotiate the follow up to the Kyoto Treaty, is so important.  

If Copenhagen is to be a success, the EU must lead by example.  There are two main challenges.  First, Europe must be able to show that it has already taken action to reduce its own emissions, and begun the move to a low-carbon economy.  Second, Europe must provide financial support to developing countries in order that they can meet the cost of adaptation to climate change, prepare for low-carbon growth, and pay for clean technologies. 

The EU has patently made good progress on the first.  The EU Emissions Trading Scheme demonstrates to the world that emissions trading can be an important - and effective – plank of global action to address climate change.  The recent decision to incorporate aviation emissions into the scheme from 2013 is a real achievement – and one that would not have been possible had individual Member States been working unilaterally. 

It seems likely that any framework adopted in December for limiting global emissions will be based on the European ETS.   So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to imagine that, by 2020, the world’s markets will be following the price of a tonne of carbon just as closely as they now follow the price of a barrel of oil.

The EU has also shown that it has the political will: last December, the EU agreed to an energy and climate package that will see a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gasses by 2020 – or a 30 percent if other developed countries adopt similar reductions. 

The costs are high but, as Lord Stern has pointed out, the costs of not investing are even higher:  we need to invest 2% of global GDP now, in order to prevent a cost of 20% of global GDP in the near future. 

This is why low-carbon growth has to be made possible globally – and that means making it possible in the poorer countries. 

Now the real test is, therefore, whether the EU can meet the second challenge – providing finance and support for developing countries. To unblock the negotiations at Copenhagen, the EU needs to show leadership on how the global deal will be financed, in particular by guaranteeing that it will contribute its fair share of significant, predictable amounts of public sector grant finance for adaptation and mitigation.  Reaching an agreed EU position in good time is a material as well as a moral responsibility – and it must be a priority for all Member States. 

Tackling climate change is of course not only an ethical imperative -   it is also in our own economic self interest.   A low carbon economy will help us secure long-term, sustainable growth for the EU.  That is why the Economic Recovery package included €5 billion to be invested in low-carbon technologies and boosting green jobs.  That included significant funding for UK projects:  €180 million for a Carbon and Capture Storage project, for example, and €40 million for the Aberdeen offshore wind testing centre.   All these projects will have a positive and rapid impact on jobs and on growth.

The EU in the world

The EU has long been a force for stability in its neighbourhood, and its policy of enlargement has been among its most successful.  It provided (and provides) an incentive for economic development and democratic reform, and the consequent products of freedom, peace and prosperity.   Just as the prospect of EU membership helped ensure that the countries of the former Soviet Bloc made a peaceful transition to democratic and rights-based societies, so the possibility of EU membership now acts as a reforming and stabilising force for Balkan States and Turkey, who see clearly the benefits that membership can bring.

Enlargement has also brought real benefits to the UK:  the 2004 accession added 75 million consumers to the EU’s internal market, and trade between the UK and the newer Member States has increased by 150% over the last decade.

But UK citizens are not convinced:  on the campaign trail I was struck that, after MPs expenses, attitudes to enlargement and migration figured prominently, even though they were largely based on myths.  It is also no secret that some of our EU partners are not enlargement enthusiasts.  We therefore need to continue to explain the benefits, address concerns, and make the case for enlargement both at home and abroad.  I see that as a key part of my role in the months ahead.

But the EU, with the authority of 27 Member States, should not, and does not, limit itself to its neighbourhood.

On the contrary, the EU is the world’s biggest provider of development assistance, and the UK has been at the vanguard of efforts to ensure that EU countries meet the Millennium Development Goals and focus the aid from 27 countries, which is delivered in part through the EU. 

In June 2008, the EU agreed an MDG Agenda for Action.  This set out specific targets and milestones for the EU contribution to the UK-initiated Year of Action on the MDGs, aiming to get the MDGs back on track by 2010.

By galvanising partners, we can achieve even more than as the UK alone.

The same applies to broader foreign policy.  This is not about diminishing the UK’s ability to act in the way it wants.  Key foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken by unanimity.

But by gathering our EU partners around us, we can add the weight of 27 countries to messages and action on human rights, security and crisis situations around the world.

So, for example, when UN sanctions against the Mugabe regime were blocked by Russia and China in the UN last year, we were able to get the EU to strengthen the common position and increase the pressure on the regime.

Now, as we approach Aung San Suu Kyi’s birthday tomorrow, we are working with our EU partners to put further pressure on the junta to release her and all other political prisoners held in Burmese jails.

Equally, through the EU’s security and defence policy, we are able to contribute collectively to security and crisis management in countries ranging from Kosovo to Palestine to Afghanistan.  This is not about building an EU army or giving up sovereignty.  It is about using the combined effect of 27 countries, and their resources, to share the burden of crisis management around the world.

The EU also has a key role to play in promoting its founding values of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law beyond its borders. By harnessing the resources of all its Member States to provide practical expertise and support for capacity-building projects in third countries, the EU can help them create the conditions for peace and stability that are critical to our future global security and prosperity.

Of course I’m not saying things are perfect.  There is much the EU could still do better in foreign and security policy.  For example, it could do more to better match its resources to our collectively agreed foreign policy goals – something we will focus on in annual budget negotiations, as well as in the Fundamental Review of the Budget. 

There is a moral imperative to this work.  But there are also huge benefits to the UK, in terms of security and prosperity:  by working to reduce poverty and conflict we begin to tackle some of the root causes of economic migration, and of terrorism and crime.

Closing comments

It is very clear that the EU today faces some of its toughest challenges.  But we live in an age where our interests – in terms of the economy, the environment, security – are more bound up than ever with the rest of the world.  It follows that the role and importance of the EU has never been greater. 

In pursuing that role it is essential to recognise the potential and limitations of the EU. I long ago reached the same conclusion as Professor Anand Menon that “contemporary European states need international institutions to ensure their own effectiveness” in coping with the threats and opportunities that are so big, and so pervasive, that they defy the powers of any individual country.

The public comprehends the threats and perceives several opportunities. Many volunteer the view that international co-operation is an essential response to both. The task for me and others is therefore to convince people that the best means of that co-operation already exists. It is called the European Union. It doesn’t have to be loved but it does have to be used and that is best done by those who are willing to handle it, engage with it, and exercise the rights and responsibilities it engenders. 

I look forward to continuing to make that prosaic but, I think, compelling case, as Minister for Europe."