The Dutch 'No' in the referendum on the European Constitution continues to ring loud more than a year after the event, revealing as it did the lack of backing for the European Union in its present form. Despite widespread support for European cooperation, a majority of voters express the opinion that the EU sticks its nose into too many areas, that it is too bureaucratic and too expensive. What then should take its place? Dutch MP Harry van Bommel and parliamentary worker Niels de Heij look at the problems of "Europe" as it is from the perspective of a country for which withdrawal is not seen by any serious political force as a real option, and suggest ways in which it could be developed into a successful form of international cooperation.

Member state governments are asking themselves where the European Union should be going. The enthusiasm for a European project once aimed at bringing peace and prosperity to the continent is, in the case of the people of many EU countries, greatly diminished. According to many people, European cooperation has become European meddling. People are angry about bureaucracy and about the neoliberal competition rules which are threatening parts of the public sector. The European Constitution was an attempt to tackle administrative problems without changing Europe's political direction. Fortunately, the Dutch and French 'No' votes meant that a European Union with more power, more areas of competence and less sovereignty for the member states is no longer the unchangeable destination. The Dutch people's 'No' was certainly not a 'No' to European cooperation. Cooperation is a good thing when it offers added value, and Europe must tackle those problems that Europeans want to see resolved.

A slimmed-down Europe

The last twenty years have seen an ever-accelerating handover of powers from national to European authorities. Already, the majority of our own country's laws are based on EU Directives. These measures are sometimes good, sometimes extremely bad. European cooperation is needed, but that should not imply a European Union which prescribes laws and and lays down rules to a member state against the wishes of a majority of that country's citizens. The present process of 'widening and deepening' - enlargement of the Union coupled with a reinforcement and extension of its powers - is too all-embracing. Cooperation around certain issues which are plainly and logically international in nature - such as combating terrorism, environmental problems, the internal market or asylum policy is clearly needed, and the EU has a responsibility to act decisively on such matters.

Internal Market

The internal market for goods is now a fact. This sometimes brings advantages not only for firms but also for consumers. As for the market in services, however, in our opinion public services must be excluded from European regulation on competition and free access. Each member state must have the right to decide precisely which services it defines as 'public'. For other services, in all cases the country where the service is offered must have the right to regulate it: the "host country principle" means that service providers from outside the country must under all circumstances fulfil the conditions and standards - in relation to working conditions and workers' rights, for example - prevailing in the host country.

Environment

Environmental issues such as climate change, air pollution and biodiversity are matters which recognise no frontiers and in relation to which a European approach can bear fruit. Nevertheless, even in the environmental area there are certain problems which are best left to the member states. One example of this is the decision as to whether to continue using nuclear energy.

Asylum

Frontier controls between member states have already to a large extent disappeared, giving the EU in effect a common external border. We support the principle of developing a European policy on asylum, under which each member state would apply the same procedure in relation to the admission of asylum seekers. It is, however, of the greatest importance that any such procedure fully respects the relevant treaties. For political refugees who have a reasonable fear of being pursued should they remain in their own countries, Europe must always have a place.

Terrorism

Cooperation and the exchange of data between police, judicial and intelligence services from different countries must be facilitated in order that terrorism and international criminality can be more effectively countered. Terrorism does not, however, stop at the EU's borders and tackling it through the UN must therefore be the priority. In addition much more must be done to address the poverty, exclusion and oppression which are terrorism's food and fuel.

Competences way beyond those needed to tackle these issues, and powers to act in areas where no such European cooperation is demanded, have for many years been taken off national authorities and handed over to Brussels. These must be returned to the member states. Matters such as education, health care, social policy, public transport and social housing are primarily national affairs. By means of a clear delineation of powers between the EU and its member states a more effective Europe can be created capable of earning the trust of the European public.

Democratic Europe

The rapid enlargement of the European Union has been achieved at the expense of the powers of national parliaments and governments. To an important extent these powers have been handed over to institutions under little or no democratic control, such as the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Council. The powers of the European Parliament remain limited, and all of this creates what has come to be called a "democratic deficit". The European Parliament is in any case too remote from the political life and of the member states and from their citizens.

A more democratic EU could, in our opinion, best be achieved by giving national parliaments more responsibility for European cooperation. National parliaments should develop more understanding of the European process through debate with their own ministers. At the same time the European Parliament must be strengthened, enabling it to act as a real counterweight to the Commission. It should therefore be given the right of co-decision over more policy areas and a more active role in monitoring EU policies, for example through the introduction of a right to hold true parliamentary enquiries. Finally, existing monitoring organisations such as the European Court of Auditors, the European anti-fraud service OLAF and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) must be placed under closer supervision by the parliament. This would make administrative arrangements not only more democratic, but more transparent.

A Europe of Solidarity

The European Union should in the first place exist for European citizens. To date, the emphasis has been laid on the interests of European corporations at the expense of democratic and social progress. The sell-off of essential services in the supply of gas and electricity has been dictated by Brussels, while attracting private investment in the fields of health care, education, the sciences and public transport has been legitimised by reference to the need to strengthen Europe's international competitiveness. In our view, the social needs of Europe's peoples can only be served by a Europe in which member states do not compete with each other in terms of working conditions, workers' rights, public services and social provision. We want to see a Europe within which social achievements are not undermined but extended. Large-scale harmonisation of social legislation would not be desirable, given the enormous differences in living standards among the member states. For this reason, each member state must retain responsibility for its own social policy. One condition for this is of course that the EU does nothing to hinder the carrying out of such nationally-determined social policies.

This responsibility of the member states for their own social policy does not of course exclude all forms of cooperation. Nor should it prevent poorer member states, such as those in central and eastern Europe which joined the EU in 2004, from receiving active help in raising their social standards. The prospect of membership was for many of these countries a stimulus for democratisation, economic reform, and a greater respect for human rights and the rule of law. Now that they have become members, the responsibilities implied by this have not gone away. They must now be given help in the first instance to achieve the social and economic level enjoyed in western Europe. What must be avoided is a situation in which western European member states treat eastern and central Europe as a resource to be plundered, for example by the recruitment of well-educated people or skilled workers who are needed at home.

In relation to any further enlargement, the "absorption capacity" of the EU is of major importance. The limited public support for further expansion increases the need to re-examine the question of enlargement. Ratification of the accession treaty for Romania and Bulgaria has recently taken place in the Dutch national parliament, and as soon as it is ratified by all 25 member states and has received the consent of the European Parliament, it will come into effect, meaning that the two countries will become members on January 1st, 2007 or January 1st, 2008. The EU will then have 27 member states.

Further enlargement of the Union would not, in the short term, be a good idea. Because the decision-making procedure in the existing treaty is based on a Union with a maximum of 27 members, further expansion should only be considered if the EU is slimmed down and reformed. Countries wishing to join in the future should be required to adhere to strict political criteria in relation to democracy, the rule of law and the market. In the past these accession criteria have been taken far too lightly. There is now little enthusiasm for enlargement, whether past or projected, and the EU can ill-afford to lose what little popular support it has in this area. Countries which remain outside the EU would be better, before they give themselves over to European competition rules, seeking EU aid to develop their economies to a point where they are truly ready for membership, and the Union is ready for them.

An affordable European Union

The total expenditure of the EU in recent years has grown to €100 bn. The Netherlands has for some time been the biggest net provider of these funds, with the amount we pay per head rising from €180 in 2003 to €194 in 2004, and the figure expected to reach €250 or even €300 for 2006. There is an urgent need to limit EU spending. An EU with fewer pretensions could balance its books with more limited resources.
Repatriation of powers from Europe to the member states would reduce the costs of European cooperation, as would major reductions in agricultural subsidies, payments which account for almost half of the EU budget. Europe's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), established in 1957, led to an explosive growth in production, but at the cost of restraints on trade, enormous cruelty to animals, and a swollen budget. This policy is, in 2006, hopelessly outdated and inefficient. There is no justification for farm subsidies being paid to huge profit-making multi-nationals and rich, powerful 'farmers' such as Prince Albert of Monaco. Agricultural reform on the European level is more than necessary. In order to put a stop to the impoverishment of farmers and the decline of the countryside there is an urgent need to offer a share of the subsidies to the compensation of those who supply services such as the management of the landscape and environment and to the preservation of the cultural heritage.

As well as being far too high, the EU's expenditure is insufficiently transparent. For the eleventh time in succession, the European Court of Auditors in 2006 came to the conclusion that there was a thoroughgoing lack of clarity in relation to just how the EU's money was being spent. Our party's MPs in The Hague extracted a promise from the Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm that he would put more pressure on his colleagues in the EU Council of Ministers to accept their responsibilities. The Netherlands is also taking the lead in being the first EU member state to take responsibility for the way in which EU subsidies are spent within its borders. If the European annual accounts are again rejected by the Court of Auditors at any time in the future, it is imperative that the Netherlands reduce its contribution to the EU, and in an extreme case that we refuse to pay it at all. Member states who are unable or refuse to take responsibility for the spending of EU subsidies, must have their own payments from the budget reduced.

The Dutch and French 'No' votes spread confusion amongst European and national leaders. We see, however, little reason to be pessimistic. The public understands the necessity for European cooperation. In the Netherlands, the idea of leaving the EU is far from the political agenda. Fewer pretensions and ambitions adapted to the need for democracy, transparency and solidarity would without doubt contribute to a more solid base of support for the European Union.

Harry van Bommel is a member of the Tweede Kamer, the lower house and most important legislative body of the Dutch national parliament, and the Socialist Party's spokesman on international affairs and the European Union. Niels van Heij is part of the team of workers which assists the SP's 8 MPs in their work. This article was translated by Steve McGiffen.

see also

http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/MarinissenEU.htm