Monitoring the rule of law in EU member states

Toespraak | 28-06-2012

Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Let’s get straight to the point.

The European Union has always been a projection of national interests, ambitions and perceptions. And these interests, ambitions and perceptions vary widely from one member state to another. France’s ideal Union Européenne differs from Germany’s ideal Europaïsche Union; Romania’s Uniunea Europeană has a different ring to it than Poland’s Unia Europejska. There is no need for us to conceal these differences. On the contrary, they challenge us to seek common ground within the EU. Time and time again. In my view, this process of continuous interaction between member states has an immanent value. Instead of keeping our eyes solely on the destination, we should more often enjoy the journey.

Fortunately, ladies and gentlemen, there is some sort of itinerary available. In Lisbon five years ago, we agreed to offer our citizens a single area of freedom, security and justice. And in 2010 we adopted an ambitious growth strategy for the coming decade. To achieve our goals, trust is an indispensable ingredient. Let me explain. In his book about social virtues and the creation of prosperity, Francis Fukuyama made a useful distinction between high-trust and low-trust societies. Virtually all economic activity in the contemporary world, he argued, is carried out not by individuals but by organisations that require a high degree of social cooperation. Property rights, contracts and commercial law are indispensable institutions for creating a modern market-oriented economic system. But transaction costs can be cut substantially if such institutions are supplemented by social capital and trust.

In short: trust, prosperity and the rule of law form an indivisible trinity.

Obviously, trust cannot be institutionalised. All we can do is to optimise the rule of law within the European Union. The euro crisis, corruption indexes and human rights reports undeniably show deficiencies in this field. They need to be remedied with full respect for the legal systems in the member states. Not only should we make the workings of the rule of law in all member states more transparent and improve our understanding of them. We should also convince our citizens that we are indeed a community of common values – as described in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union – with an independent judiciary, anti-corruption procedures and a reliable police force. We need to set the bar high. And make sure our own countries are an example of what we expect from candidate countries.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is always a pleasure to welcome our European friends to The Hague, city of peace and justice, home to the major international courts and tribunals. But today I am extra happy to see you, because it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight. I am well aware that some people have serious doubts about the motives that inspire my government to push this agenda. Let me reassure you. Our constitution says that the Dutch government must promote the development of the international legal order. This is our only goal. By no means do we seek to undermine solidarity between north and south, or between old and new member states. We do not propose a system of naming and shaming. No. We simply believe that improving the rule of law throughout the EU is essential if we are to win popular support for the EU. European citizens and companies should have access to a single area of justice; every individual member state is ─ in a sense ─ part of every other member state. It is essential that Dutch tourists, Latvian investors or British multinationals can implicitly trust all legal systems within the European Union.

The rule-of-law issue was raised by the previous Dutch government, and we want to keep it on the European agenda. My country firmly believes that a structured dialogue on the rule of law could be a useful instrument to prevent future crises of confidence in the EU. Because, in the words of the late Tony Judt, ‘Familiarity reduces insecurity’.

Let me also make clear that the structured dialogue is not, and should not be, a Dutch hobby horse. The draft mechanism is up for discussion this morning. And we warmly invite you to reflect on the political implications of such a mechanism in the afternoon. Should it or should it not be a responsibility of EU institutions? We simply raise the question, without imposing any answers on anyone. It is all about mutuality, about sharing best practices. A Romanian-Dutch judicial exchange programme, for instance, clearly shows that the rule-of-law issue is not a one-way street. Dutch judges came back from Bucharest last February with some good ideas to improve the quality of their work here in the Netherlands. They were impressed with the excellent press facilities in the public prosecutor’s office and an electronic system that divides legal cases randomly among judges to prevent manipulation. So our rule-of-law initiative is certainly not only about corruption in Greece or media concentration in Italy, whatever critics may say.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m off to a European Council meeting in Brussels in a minute, so let me draw my talk to a close. Yes, the European Union is a projection of national interests, ambitions and perceptions. And yes, our vision of the EU differs from one member state to another. But united we must stand in finding common ground to improve European cooperation. We all agree that there is a gap between simply agreeing on the values described in article 2 of the Treaty on the one hand, and ensuring compliance with these common values throughout the Union on the other. Let’s take it from there and carefully discuss strategies to fill this gap step by step.

In this light, let me quote the famous French diplomat Talleyrand: ‘Doucement, je suis pressé’ – calm down, I’m in a hurry. For my government believes that European integration is a long and winding process. We can’t think about building new floors without bracing the foundation. In our view, bringing the rule of law in all member states into line with article 2 is fundamental. Without it, the EU will always remain a construction site.

Thank you.