Norbert Schmelzer lezing
My friends Norbert and Daphne,
It is a great pleasure to speak here today, at the seventh lecture in the series named after you, Norbert. In the early seventies, when you were Minister of Foreign Affairs, I was still playing soccer in Maastricht, slowly awakening to the appeal of politics and a political career. Your striking performance, both as a Parliamentarian and as a Minister, features prominently in my first memories and images of Dutch politics.
Ladies and gentlemen, I personally owe a lot to Mr Schmelzer. He selected me, about twenty years ago, as a Christian Democrat candidate for the European Parliament. And now I am very proud to follow in his footsteps as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Verehrter Ministerpräsident Juncker, Lieber Jean-Claude,
auch Sie sind ein herausragender Politiker christdemokratischer Prägung. Ein Mann mit großen Ambitionen, der sich schon seit langem im Zentrum der nationalen und internationalen Politik bewegt. Ihr erstes Ministeramt traten Sie 1989 an, als Sie zum Finanzminister ernannt wurden. 1995 übernahmen Sie das Amt des Ministerpräsidenten. Heute stehen Sie an der Spitze Ihrer dritten Koalitionsregierung. Eine beeindruckende Leistung, um die Sie jeder Politiker beneiden wird!
Überdies sind Sie ein echter Europäer. Außer in Ihrer schönen Stadt an der Alzette sind Sie längst auch in allen anderen europäischen Hauptstädten zu Hause. Sie sind überall ein gerngesehener Gast, Sie werden als Ratgeber und ehrlicher Makler geschätzt. Sie standen an der Wiege des Euro und können sich so manchen Erfolg in Europa als Verdienst anrechnen. So haben Sie während der luxemburgischen EU-Ratspräsidentschaft 2005 eine wichtige Reform des Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakts zustande gebracht und die Lissabon-Strategie wiederbelebt.
Your optimism has not faltered. Throughout the years, you have remained a staunch believer in the European dream. When the constitutional process was halted, in 2005, after the referenda in France and the Netherlands, you did not hide your disappointment. Since then, we have frequently heard your voice in the Dutch debate on the future of Europe, for example here in the Paleiskerk today.
I have listened attentively to your words, and I welcome the opportunity to share a platform with you this afternoon.
I feel I can address you all the more openly because we are both involved in the Benelux. Both our countries have been engaged in the process of European integration from the outset. As close neighbours and good friends, we can be frank with each other.
EU in midlife crisis?
Ladies and gentlemen,
The EU’s fiftieth anniversary evoked mixed feelings. Leaders across Europe celebrated the occasion, inviting their citizens to share in the festivities. But The Economist expressed its birthday wishes with a headline that referred to Europe’s Midlife Crisis. I have recently turned 50 myself, and my ambition and energy level have not diminished. So to have the EU’s 50th birthday associated with no more than a midlife crisis does not reflect reality! However, much of the international press played the same Euro-blues theme.
The Economist gave a number of reasons why the EU was not fit at 50. Today, I would like to discuss two of them: firstly: popular disenchantment with the European project and secondly, the unfinished business of the Constitutional Treaty.
I. Public support
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me begin with popular disenchantment. In my view, this is the more serious problem, and largely explains why the constitutional road has turned out to be a dead end. European citizens view European integration as an elite project, which controls their daily lives but over which they have no control.
This sentiment is not confined to the two countries that voted no. Regular opinion polls taken by Eurobarometer reveal high dissatisfaction with the Union in many of its member states. Although the referendum in Luxembourg voted in favour of the Treaty, the no vote still amounted to 43%. The feeling of disillusion is widespread. How have we responded?
At the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome in March, many of us looked back and applauded the EU’s achievements. European cooperation has brought peace, prosperity and freedom to the continent on an unprecedented scale.
The unification of the continent is another major achievement the EU can take credit for. Freedom, democracy and respect for human rights have spread as the EU has expanded and welcomed new members into its community of values. For all these reasons, peace, prosperity and freedom, the Berlin Declaration of 25 March is right to conclude that we have united for the better.
But now, the birthday party is over, and we cannot simply rely on the rhetoric of grand occasions. As President Barroso said: 60 years of peace has meant that the image of Europe as a bastion against war is losing its resonance. People have come to take the values of peace, prosperity and freedom for granted, and will not necessarily attribute them to the EU.
On the contrary, there is a perception that the EU, as part of the globalised world, might threaten their prosperity, by taking away their job, their security, their quality of life and their national identity.
I understand that sentiment, yet I disagree with it. It is true that we live in a highly interdependent world. Our employment, our security, our environment are all influenced by global developments which are out of our direct control. It is also true that globalisation has two sides to it: opportunities and challenges. People tend to seize the opportunities, and shy away from the challenges. But globalisation is not a menu from which we can pick the items we like and disregard the ones that disturb us. Globalisation is a reality, a fact of life, which we cannot change and which we will have to cope with. And to cope, we need the European Union. If we go it alone, we will be in trouble. And if we retreat behind the dykes, we will really shoot ourselves in the foot. Reality will soon catch up with us.
It may be tempting, but it would be very unwise to give in to protectionist sentiments that call for greater self-reliance. It is all too easy to advocate withdrawing ourselves from Europe and the world. But where would this lead us? Without the benefits of the common market, companies would move away, if not to Poland then to India, and many people would lose their jobs. The promise of security will ring hollow, I can assure you. So abandoning Europe will definitely threaten our prosperity and will take away our jobs, our security and our quality of life.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Turning our back on Brussels will not help us in the slightest. Now, the question is: how should we respond to citizens’ concerns?
The only credible response is one that convinces people that there is something in it for them. That European cooperation does not serve some abstract purpose, but is actually in people’s own interest, whether for their employment, their security or their environment. We should highlight the tangible benefits Europe provides, and at the same time mend its faults. The advantages of EU membership should be made visible, if they are no longer self-evident. At the same time, the perceived disadvantages must not be rendered invisible, but be tackled head on.
What does Europe do for us, here and now? Let us turn our attention from the Europe of Principle to the Practical Europe.
Common market
The most tangible result of fifty years of European integration is the common market. This is not a virtual destination: the common market is where we work, study, travel, pay our bills or do our shopping. So many aspects of our daily lives are affected by the common market and its four freedoms – the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons – that to try and imagine this country without it would be like moving to another planet.
For the Netherlands, which has always had an open orientation, the common market has brought obvious advantages. More than half of our national income originates from foreign trade, and 80% of our exports go to EU member states. Overall, since 1993, the single market has generated more than 2.5 million new jobs and 800 billion euros in extra wealth. And we share in this wealth! That’s how we earn our living.
Euro
The euro is another concrete example of what European integration brings. Mr Juncker, as the first permanent president of the Eurogroup, I know that this subject is dear to your heart. In a recent article in ELSA Leiden, you expressed surprise at how little pride Europeans take in their single currency, despite all it has achieved in the few years of its existence. You point out that there have been no financial earthquakes since its introduction. Not only has the euro protected the European economy, you say, but it has also helped to cushion the effect of rising oil prices. It is a stable currency, respected by our partners and much in demand worldwide.
All true, but these merits tend to escape the individual’s attention. To date, the dominant perception is that the euro has made everything more expensive. It is up to you and me to change this perception and to point out that, with the introduction of a single currency:
- inflation in the Netherlands has steadily decreased to 1.1% in 2006, the lowest level since 1989 – this refutes the common belief that prices have doubled since the advent of the euro;
- it has become much easier for our companies to export their products;
- transaction costs for individuals and businesses have vanished, saving time and money;
- the strong euro gives us more purchasing power abroad. Both the dollar and the yen keep losing ground to our currency.
Mr Juncker, I agree with you. We have reason to be proud. And the fact that my beer is now twice as expensive should be attributed to canny bartenders, not to the introduction of the euro!
Support from stakeholders
Ladies and gentlemen,
The harsh reality is that politicians cannot force the public to support the EU. People must see the advantages for themselves. What certainly helps is the support of stakeholders that are aware of the positive presence of the EU in their daily work. The President of the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW), Bernard Wientjes, said that it is up to us to take the lead, to be the driving force, in the realisation of a new European dream. The big issues of today: energy, environment, integration, globalisation, all indicate that the Netherlands doesn’t stand a chance by itself: The Netherlands can only survive with Europe. These words should be more effective than any political discourse could ever be. The credibility of the message also depends on the messenger!
II. From Constitutional Treaty to Classical Amending Treaty
Ladies and gentlemen,
Now let me turn to the constitutional process.
After the referenda in France and the Netherlands, Mr Juncker, you said: The European Union is not in crisis. It is in deep crisis. Here, I disagree with you. In general, I disagree with the whole “midlife crisis” idea expressed by The Economist. I do not think that the French and Dutch no votes have brought on a crisis. I would say rather it was a temporary setback, and I am optimistic enough to think that this setback can be turned to our common advantage.
I can tell you without hesitation that I was very disappointed at the outcome of the referendum in the Netherlands. I was in favour of the draft Constitution, because I felt it would move Europe forward, in the best interests of its citizens. I was also against a referendum. But a majority in Parliament decided to have one. We took a risk and we paid the price. But there is no use crying over spilt milk. And, ladies and gentlemen, now that we have had a referendum and the outcome is crystal clear, I must respect the opinion of the people of the Netherlands.
After a period of reflection and analysis, my feeling is that the ‘no’ may even have been a blessing in disguise. I believe the rejection of the constitutional project was a wake-up call, not an alarm bell. It was definitely a painful lesson, but also a very instructive one. For the first time since the launch of European integration, we received a clear message that we were headed in the wrong direction, serving up images of a European superstructure that never existed in the first place. Yes, the EU has a flag, and its own anthem, although I doubt if many people would recognise Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” as such. But to add an EU Constitution to these symbols, which many see as primarily national in nature, proved to be a step too far, at least for the Dutch.
Does this mean that the Netherlands is no longer in favour of European cooperation? Such an assumption would be so far off the mark that it could not be taken seriously.
Does it mean that the EU can no longer function? Of course not. As a matter of fact, the EU has not stood still since June 2005. Take the outcomes of Hampton Court, Lahti and the most recent European Council, which agreed on ambitious targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The EU’s ability to show leadership in the important area of climate change has not been adversely affected by the two no votes.
Does it imply that we can never agree on institutional reform to improve the Union’s efficiency and decisiveness? Again, it does not. In fact, the Netherlands is in favour of a new Amending Treaty. Not a Constitutional Treaty, but a conventional Amending Treaty, as we have seen in the past and no doubt will continue to see in the future. We understand, as much as anyone else, that Nice does not address today’s realities and that changes are needed. For one, we must find new ways to cope with the presence of 27 member states at the same table. We cannot have 27 Commissioners stumbling over each other in Brussels: it is simply not effective. Secondly, new areas of cooperation, such as climate change, need to be given a firm basis in a new Treaty, so that the EU can implement its policies most effectively. The Netherlands would definitely not want to sit on its hands and do nothing: the EU needs a new Treaty. As a constructive partner, we are engaging in the process whole-heartedly and creatively.
And yes, a lot of useful work has already been done in the context of the constitutional project. But those nuggets need to be lifted out of that context, if we are to respect the popular will.
Ladies and gentlemen.
History shows us that the process of European integration has involved a series of obstacles, followed by rapid and sometimes unexpected breakthroughs. As a Parliamentarian, Norbert Schmelzer witnessed the French empty chair policy. But that “crisis” was brought to an end by – Mr Juncker will be pleased to note – the “Luxembourg compromise”. I am sure we will succeed this time around as well. If there were ever to be a new European motto, it could be copied from Prime Minister Balkenende’s home province of Zeeland: luctor et emergo (I struggle and I rise). Let us no longer focus on the struggle, but instead work towards the rise! And it is important that we rise and succeed together, all 27 members of the EU. I see no merit whatsoever in any à la carte solutions.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In the run-up to a new Treaty, several issues are key for the Netherlands. The government summed them up in its recent letter to Parliament: the EU should regulate less on certain issues and more on others, be more transparent, make stricter use of the principle of subsidiarity, agree on a more equitable division of financial burdens, and show more respect for its own rules – specifically when it comes to enlargement. These are some of the issues that will be the focus of our attention. The underlying objective will always be to make the European Union more effective, decisive, democratic and credible, so that it can better serve the interests of its citizens.
I would like to highlight a number of these issues.
Competences
First of all, it is important to agree on who should do what. In my mind, it is clear that some issues should be addressed at European level, whereas others should be left in national hands. There are certain issues that should fall outside the EU’s sphere of influence, because the way we have organised them is specific to our country’s circumstances and identity. These crucial issues should not be brought within a single European model, and “Brussels” should not lay hands on them, either directly or through the back door. I have in mind, for example: our pensions, our mortgage interest rates, the organisation of our educational system and our healthcare system.
To me, the best solution would be to lay down respective competences in an Amending Treaty, so that everybody is 100% clear on who is responsible for what, and no misunderstandings can arise. The clearer we are on what competences we are willing to assign to the EU, the easier it will be to agree on decision-making by qualified majority vote on those issues. This is plain logic: if we can be certain that crucial issues are ours to decide on, we will not be as fearful of abandoning the consensus rule. An Amending Treaty can provide such a guarantee.
Subsidiarity and the role of national Parliaments
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would also like to say a few words on the principle of subsidiarity. Here, the idea is that decisions are made as close to the direct stakeholders as possible. This is a bottom-up approach, ensuring maximum legitimacy and support for the decision in every case. It is also a very Christian Democratic principle, by the way. However, the connotation seems to be that subsidiarity always means less Europe, as if it implies a tendency to nationalise issues.
I disagree. If you look at the main challenges in today’s world, such as climate change and energy security, modern terrorism, asylum and migration, it is clear that these issues require a common approach. Simply because a European response is more effective than a national response in these cases. If we join forces, we can use the power of Europe as a whole as leverage. The Netherlands will therefore strive to give these cross-border issues a solid basis in any future Treaty, because there is none at present. And this hampers the EU’s performance and is detrimental to our national interests.
National parliaments should have a higher profile in European affairs. For one, they should assume a greater role in deciding what the appropriate level is to address a certain issue (the subsidiarity test). They should not be confronted with new EU policies that have been in the making for years and are now basically agreed. Instead, they should be able to influence the preparatory stages of the legislative process.
To this effect, one could for example think along the following lines. National parliaments could be given the opportunity to express themselves on new proposals by the Commission. Now suppose a majority of parliaments agree that a certain proposal by the Commission does not meet the subsidiarity test. In other words, they agree that the European level is not the appropriate level at which to deal with a certain issue. The Commission could then be forced to withdraw its proposal.
Alternatively, if a proposal met with the disapproval of a substantial number of national parliaments, but not a majority, it could be forwarded to the Council. The Council would then have to express an opinion on the admissibility of the Commission’s proposal, again on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. If the Council agreed that the issue should not be dealt with at European level, the Commission would be forced to withdraw its proposal. If the Council felt the proposal does meet the criteria, the Commission could proceed and individual Council members could be held accountable by their respective parliaments.
In my view, the main advantage of such a layered mechanism would be that it makes the EU’s legislative process much more democratic. By involving national parliaments, and the people they represent, at an early stage, the debate will be much livelier. The Dutch Parliament has experimented with such an approach over the last year and a half, on its own initiative. Maybe other national parliaments have done something similar. If such an approach were formalised, however, a far greater impetus would be given to democracy in the EU. One of the EU’s core values would acquire more practical meaning.
Some may argue that the role of the European Parliament would be undermined if national parliaments had a greater say. I do not necessarily see this happening, since the influence of our national parliaments would limit itself to the initial stages of the legislative process. In the remainder of the decision-making process, the onus would still be on the European Parliament. Only last week, the President of the EP, Hans-Gert Pöttering, paid us a visit. He actually agreed on the need to strengthen the role of national parliaments and said that they and the EP were partners in democracy that could c omplement each other. He also suggested that the subsidiarity test by national parliaments could be enhanced. So we have some allies already!
Personally, I see a lot of merit in such a mechanism and would like to see it incorporated in an Amending Treaty.
Enlargement
I also believe that the Union’s Copenhagen criteria for accession could be included in such a Treaty. We all agreed on these criteria yet have so far failed to give them a sound legal basis. It is important that we do so: it would be a clear case of showing respect for our own rules. Enlargement is a delicate process, and criteria are not there to be compromised. To me, this means no dates for accession until it is agreed that all the criteria have been met. No frontloading, no soft adherence to our own rules. If the EU were to act differently, this would cost a great deal. Again, the legitimacy and credibility of the Union would be at risk. The public would not understand. And in my view their objections would be justified.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have come to the end of my response. I sincerely hope I have not taken up too much of your time.
To you, Mr Juncker, and to the audience here in the Paleiskerk, I hope I have signalled that business as usual can apply only to a certain extent when we continue our negotiations. Dutch voters sent a clear signal in 2005 and this government will respect that signal. We will not aim for a new version of a European Constitution that for our sake is merely called something else. Instead, we will work towards a new Amending Treaty that fills the gaps left by Nice.
To the Dutch public, I hope I have made clear that we will continue to strengthen the process of European cooperation – in your interests. We don’t necessarily need more Europe, we need a better Europe, which better serves your needs and responds to your concerns. As President Barroso has said, globalisation makes the case for Europe. But in making that case, we must value credibility over quick gains. Only a credible response will ensure public support, without which the EU will slowly but surely disintegrate.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat what Norbert Schmelzer said when he was interviewed for the Jean Monnet Oral History Project. The distinction between national interest and European interest is artificial. It is in our national interest to promote sound European policies. I will certainly recall those words, in the months ahead.
Thank you.