Speech Policy Network, 28 February 2013, London.

Toespraak | 28-02-2013

I want to react to what has been said earlier. Especially by Commissioner Rehn, when he came up with this quote from a professor. I don’t remember his name, but he said:

‘What has Europe ever done for you?’ And I was reminded of Monty Python’s Life of Brian

and ‘What have the Romans ever done for you?’ We’re in the same situation here.

The emotion is: we’re being occupied. And the reaction to that emotion is: rational arguments why things that are being done are good for you. That, in politics, will never work. That is one of the problems Europe’s facing today. That those who are in favour of European cooperation and integration, when they are criticised on a fundamental emotional level, their reaction is always rational arguments: ‘But they gave you a lower roaming fee’. You will not win the argument for Europe by stipulating once more that you got a lower roaming fee. You’ll have to make the argument on exactly the same emotional level. Like those who argue that Europe’s at its end, that Europe’s turning into a new dictatorship.

I believe in Europe because it has brought peace. I believe in Europe because it is the best instrument to protect our citizens against the negative effects of globalisation. And to help our citizens profit from the positive elements of globalisation, we need the size of Europe.

We as member states individually do not have the size to confront the challenges society faces. But Europe’s challenged on a fundamental level.

Why? Because the social contract which underlies our societies and which underlies European integration is being challenged today. Because for the first time in a couple of generations, people are now looking at their societies, be it in the UK or in the Netherlands or elsewhere, and are thinking: are our children actually going to be as well off as we are? Are we not heading for a certain decline? Isn’t the social contract to which we contribute out of order? Is it not a reality that those who are asked to pay for solidarity see that others benefit from solidarity, but doubt themselves when they need others to be grateful for their contributions they will not get the same solidarity in return?

I think this is one of the fundamental problems in Western European societies. The welfare state is no longer seen as something we all contribute to and we all profit from. It is seen as something we contribute to and others profit from. And that is why the crisis between the North and the South in Europe has resonated so strongly with the European population. Because it’s a reflection of what is happening within societies.

In the North people will say: look, we have to pay for people in the South who don’t even bother to go to work. Who retire at fifty. And live easy lives at our expense. And people in the South are saying: look, we have to go through these austerity programmes not because it is necessary. The programmes are killing our economies because the North wants to impose its vision of society on us.

And this is arguably the biggest challenge European integration has ever seen. The fact that this idea of shared destinies is being put to the test at a very fundamental level. Not just of North and South, but, if I may say so, metaphorically, North and South within every society in the European Union.

Now turning to the subject I was asked to speak about. I was asked to reflect on a speech by a conservative prime minister in the United Kingdom. And I must say, if you read the speech, it is rather pro-European. Margaret Thatcher in Bruges in 1988 certainly had a number of things to say that were pro-Europe. They would probably not be said today by most prime ministers in any European nation. But one interesting point she made, warning against Europe, was listen, we want to stay British. Just as the Dutch want to stay Dutch. And the French want to stay French. We don’t want Europe to sort of take away our identity.

Now if you look back 25 years, and you look at the situation today, I think one could argue our identities are more pronounced, are clearer on a regional and on a local level than they were 25 years ago. I don’t think anybody is less Dutch than they were 25 years ago. Even in the region where I’m from in the south of the Netherlands. A region where local identity has amplified, has increased over the past 25 years. Not diminished. I think that this Europe, at the level of identity, regionally and locally, is not less than 25 years ago. I think it is stronger than 25 years ago. Of course, what happened in the last 25 years does not have to be repeated in the future. But I think it’s good to realise that you can have increased European integration, you can have increased European cooperation, without losing your identity.

Or yourself.

I think that Europe today needs to look at itself and needs to reform itself. That is quite clear.

What irritates me – and I say this openly – is the fact that Brussels especially, the Brussels bubble – and I would agree with Prime Minister Cameron on this – is very good at telling others to reform and to change. But it’s very reluctant to reform and change itself. We have just had our multi-annual budget debate over the last couple of weeks. And I’m really, truly disappointed. That on heading 5, administrative expenses of the European Union, we have a 9% increase. Most of which will be spent on people working in Brussels. Whereas almost all of us at national level have to go through very difficult austerity programmes, limiting the salaries of our officials. Limiting the number of civil servants, etc. So I think if Brussels wants us to reform – and I think they have some strong points there – I think they should also lead in reform. And not, you know, raise their salaries that have always been talked about, with some justification. Not go onto the streets and strike because they want a pay rise, when the rest of the civil servants in Europe have to accept cuts in their pay.

I think we need to solve two problems. First of all, and this was debated in the first round, we need to bring back economic growth and jobs. For this we need to foster innovation and competitiveness. We need a better functioning internal market. We need to control the debt crisis and reform our welfare state. I think the left, especially in Europe, should come to terms with the fact that there will be no welfare state in the future without reform.

We cannot spend ourselves out of this crisis. We have to make sure we do reform our welfare state. There is a lot of room for reform of the welfare state. And it can become a good welfare state that attends to the needs of our population. Especially, and this was also said in the first round, we need jobs. We need our younger generation to see light at the end of the tunnel. And in many European countries that is not the case today.

Secondly, we have to show that the EU can actually really help us. Provide for protection in this era of globalisation that also comes with a lot of risks for our populations. I think in many European countries, also in mine, working people especially see Europe as an agent of globalisation and don’t see it as a protective force against globalisation. We need to change that paradigm. In that context, too, it’s necessary for Brussels to reform itself.

The fundamental question of ‘why Europe?’ is never answered today. We’re always talking about ‘how Europe’. And ‘how Europe’ will never win elections. Only ‘why Europe?’ will win elections for Europe. I think too many people today think that the Commission and other institutions in Brussels are a justification in and by themselves. What they do, they do for Brussels, not for us. I think this is echoed not just in the UK, but in many EU member states.

And we do have an obligation. To clarify that the institutions we’ve created in Brussels are there for the people. Not for themselves. If we talk about the democratic deficit, we see this at three levels. First of all, there is an output deficit. Europe overpromises and underdelivers.

We need to change that. Secondly there is a throughput deficit. Nobody understands how Brussels works. Very few Europeans have – let me put it this way – an affectionate relationship with the European Parliament. And people do not understand the mechanics of the decision-making in Brussels. Thirdly, there is an input deficit. In most of our states, we don’t know what happens with what we decide in Westminster or in the Dutch parliament, and then it’s presented in the European Council or elsewhere. Where is our voice going? Where is our position going? What’s coming out of it? We don’t see that.

So we need to fix the democratic deficit at three levels. And because this is so intricate, the simple solution of more power to the European Parliament will not fix it. We need national parliaments to become much more involved. To take the responsibility we need national politicians to stop blaming Europe for everything. And to stop claiming success and avoiding mentioning sometimes that the success – believe it or not – can really be attributed to Brussels.

Now, does this mean we need different forms of integration? I would say that we already have many different forms of integration and within the existing treaty we can have as much flexibility as one would like. This has changed recently, because this flexibility was always intended to accommodate people who wanted to travel at different paces. Those who wanted to travel fast could do that. And to join later – Schengen is one of the prime examples of that. I think this is a very important, very powerful model. And we need to work with that. The eurozone in fact works like that. And I think people would be under an illusion if they believe that the eurozone will remain at its present membership. Very few countries in the future will stay out of the eurozone. By choice, of course, people can stay out, but I think most of them will want to join. This is a good model.

What has changed in the debate is that now we’re not just talking about travelling at different speeds in one direction. We’re now starting to discuss the possibility of starting travelling in different directions. And sometimes when I follow the British debate, it’s like a person in a car who hears a message on the radio saying: there’s a ghost rider on the M1. And the person in the car says: One? I see about a thousand here.

We will not head towards the united states of Europe. That’s one of those images that is always adopted in this debate. We will not lose our cultural identity. But what will happen then? I think in the next couple of years, we will concentrate especially on fixing what needs to be fixed. That is creating a banking union. And fixing the holes in the Economic and Monetary Union. These holes were created at the outset in Maastricht. Because the French didn’t want increased economic coordination. So what happened was that the idea became that convergence would automatically lead to the closing of those gaps in the Economic and Monetary Union. We had never imagined this crisis between the periphery and the centre. Which has increased the holes in the Economic and Monetary Union rather than closed them. So we need to fix that.

I believe we can fix that within the existing treaties, the limits of which will be explored in the next couple of years. And probably the limits will be indicated by other institutions such as the Constitutional Court in Germany. And if there the outcome is: what we can do cannot be done within the treaties, we might get a debate on treaty change. But I believe – and I have some experience with treaty change – that we would do everything to avoid treaty change. If we can fix it within the existing treaties – and I believe this is the common opinion in almost all member states today; if we get out of this crisis – and as you heard in the first panel, people are rather optimistic about this – the call for treaty change will not reoccur. I think that if we can fix it within the existing treaties, we will. Which is going to be an interesting case for the British government if they still want a referendum. One would ask a referendum on what, if you don’t have treaty change.

This brings me to the speech of this other prime minister. A recent speech. If you look at Dutch foreign policy over the last seventy years, there’s one consistent element in our Europe policy. We want the Brits on board. From the very first discussion, on European cooperation between France and Germany, a central point, a pivotal point in Dutch foreign policy was to enlarge Europe by getting the Brits on board, because in our view, that would create a better balance. Between those countries who have, shall we say a protectionist inclination, and those countries who are oriented towards trade.

And this has served us well. Served the Netherlands well, and I honestly believe it has also served the United Kingdom well. I wonder what profits there would be in the UK leaving the European Union. I can’t really see them. It is an emotional thing. It is an internal party discussion. I understand all of those elements. But if I try to see, will it make Britain stronger? Absolutely not. Look at the position of Norway. Norway spends arguably more per capita on the EU and still has no say in the decision-making in Brussels. It can only adopt what is decided there. The EU can provide protection. We saw it in the case of salmon from Norway. It was creating a problem in Scotland. The EU took measures to prevent the Scottish economy from suffering too much. The UK might be in a completely different position. That salmon from Scotland creates a problem elsewhere in the EU. And if you’re not a member of the EU, you know what’s going to happen.

I think it is also an illusion to believe that you can leave the EU and still be part of the common market. The common market is not a static thing. It will develop under the influence of the decisions we will take on improving the euro. When we fix the euro, this will create a new dynamic. Not just for the financial sector, but especially for the internal market. This is what we want. This is what the UK wants. This is what we need to do in the next couple of years. The danger is, if you’re not part of the EU you will create this dynamic, but will no longer be part of that dynamic.

I think it would be a grave mistake to believe that you can leave Europe and then still profit from the internal market. To my mind what we need to do in the next couple of years is reform the European Union. The chances of reform in the European Union are so much bigger with the UK on board, than with the UK outside. You will never reform the European Union by leaving the room. You will only reform the European Union by sitting down with your partners in Europe and the institutions and talking about the reforms we need.

I think there is a good case to be made for reviewing Europe’s competences. I agree with the British government on that. But do it together with your partners in Europe. Do it together with the institutions. Also the institutions. President Barroso has made remarks to that effect. He wants to look at their competences. And you can call it repatriation. You can call it what you like. But I think there is a case to be made on several issues. Where you can come to an agreement within the existing treaties. To say yes, the Commission might have this competence. But it’s not effective, not useful for the Commission to exert this competence.

We could rather give it back to the member states and have them exert it themselves. In my view you can do this in a common agreement with your partners in Europe and the institutions without looking for treaty change. In my view that is not necessary.

The other thing I would advise in using that approach is that you have to give a positive answer to at least three basic questions. First, will it strengthen the working of the internal market? Aiming for a highly competitive social market economy, which is crucial for creating European competitiveness and is possibly the greatest added value the EU has to offer for its citizens.

Secondly, does it respect the political essence of the EU as a common project of states and people?

Thirdly, does it ensure that the institutional set-up of the union remains balanced with its carefully constructed roles for the Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice?

Incidentally, as someone who has worked in these fields for more than 25 years, arguably the best people in the institutions are from the UK.

Your nationals in the EU institutions are arguably always among the best professionals in those institutions. Working for the EU and for Britain. Yes, that is possible at the same time.

And it would be a great loss to Europe, to those institutions, but specifically to the United Kingdom, if those people were forced to leave those institutions. That would really weaken all of us.

Therefore I call upon the British government to join us with other countries to reform the Union from within. To force the Brussels bubble to look at itself. To make sure we clarify the three issues with the democratic deficit. In output, throughput and input. We can do this.

We can do this at a national level and we can certainly do this at a European level. We have to do this, because otherwise we will permanently lose the support of our population.

I think the strongest part in the speech made by Prime Minister Cameron is exactly about that democratic deficit. He is absolutely right. Across the continent we’ve lost the support of parts of our population for the European project. We need to regain their support. We can’t build Europe without the support of Europeans. And this can be not just the argument of lower roaming fees, but also, especially, arguments based on a common shared destiny. Based on a shared idea of what a social market economy should be.

Finally, Prime Minister Cameron called for the application of the principles of fairness. I agree. But fairness is a two-way street. You can’t just claim fairness from your partners in Europe. You have to apply fairness to your own attitude. Saying to the rest of Europe: give me what I want, or I’ll walk away will lead to the reaction we’ve seen from certain corners saying well, we’ll roll out the carpets. Be our guest, walk away. And I would advise my British friends to look who’s saying this. And whether they have the best interest of Britain and other partners in Europe in mind when they are saying it.

I would not be saying anything else as a Dutch foreign minister, because it’s part and parcel of what we believe in, but I want to repeat it finally once again. We need Britain in Europe. We need a strong and convincing argument for Europe in Britain. Because as Winston Churchill said, if you feed the crocodile of euroscepticism – my addition to his quote – if you feed the crocodile, the only thing you will achieve, is that the crocodile will eat you last.

Thank you very much.