Kathalijne Buitenweg: Love for the Muddle that is Europe On May 22, 2014 the citizens of the Netherlands, like the citizens of all the other member states, will go to the polls to choose their representatives for the European Parliament. But what do we really know about the European Union? The Green European Foundation, with the Dutch Foundation Bureau de Helling, is organising a series of lectures in Utrecht featuring well-known speakers to discuss how the EU works, what its role is and why we should care about the up-coming elections. Kathalijne Buitenweg, former Member of the European Parliament for the Dutch Greens, opened the series of debates on January 6th, with a talk on the history and functioning of the EU. In the first of six Monday evening lectures on Europe, Kathalijne Buitenweg spoke about the history and functioning of the European Union. Europe has been her field of work for over ten years and is the subject of her doctoral thesis, now in progress. It is a complex matter, for Europe changes continually. What is more, it is not based on some grand design. To Buitenweg, however, that is not a drawback: “What I want to convey is what it means to feel love for the muddle that is Europe.” Supported by the European Parliament, Bureau de Helling is organising the Dieper Europa in (“Deeper into Europe”) lecture series together with the GroenLinks working group on Europe and the Green European Foundation. Kathalijne Buitenweg is now writing a thesis on the functioning of the European Parliament, set the ball rolling. She took her audience on a tour through the EU’s institutions. Love for the muddle that is Europe “After World War II, the governments of Europe decided to unify their economies to make future wars impossible. Several countries chose to share sovereignty in the area of coal and steel. These were not just fuel for the war machine, but the basis of their economy.” The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was established in 1952. This was followed by ideas for a European Defence Community and a European Political Community. “The Political Community would be responsible for upholding human rights in all its member states. Proposals of the
same kind are now up for discussion once more. The French parliament voted against joining the European Defence Community, putting an end to all the other federalist plans. Subsequently people opted for a more pragmatic approach. They looked towards the internal market and nuclear power, which then seemed to be a booming business.” “This gave rise to a number of European institutions. Each of the communities – the ECSC for coal and steel, Euratom for nuclear power and European Economic Community for the internal market – gained its own institution, consisting of a Commission and a Council of Ministers. There was however just one Parliamentary Assembly. So the setup was a bit of a muddle: the EU was built up bit by bit without the benefit of a grand design. It was not a coherent union like that of the United States. This structure was imposed from above. My own country, the Netherlands, could not reconcile the European Constitution with its own Constitution. Initially there were only six members. Meanwhile the European Union grew to include 28 member states, now that Croatia has joined. The EU is in a continual state of transition, with more and more countries and wider and wider powers. This in turn causes continual modification of the institutions. The rules of the European Parliament, for example, have to be revised several times a year.” “One significant turning point was the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.” It instilled some order into the chaos. “The European Union was the roof over a structure with three pillars, a bit like a Greek temple. The ECSC and Euratom were merged to form the first pillar. It had a supranational character, with no veto for individual member states. The participating countries did not lose their sovereignty but shared it. The member states chose to cooperate in the fields of foreign policy and security, and of justice and policing.” This cooperation had an intergovernmental character. “The European Parliament gave its advice, but every member state was entitled to a veto.” Maastricht was followed by the treaties of Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001). The attitude of GroenLinks gradually changed. By the time of Nice, GroenLinks no longer judged the treaties against its own ideals, but considered whether each treaty was in itself an improvement. That is why GroenLinks voted in favour of the Treaty of Nice. The negotiations for the Treaty of Nice were a disaster: the Netherlands wanted more votes in the Council of the Ministers, come what may, even though voting does not take place all that often here. In exchange, the Netherlands offered up one seat in the European Parliament.” European integration was not really advanced by the Treaty of Nice. The fiasco of the Constitution “The next treaty clearly had to come about in a different way. The aim was to open up the procedure. The new
Kathalijne Buitenweg: Love for the Muddle that is Europe
negotiations would be on a large number of different issues. The more eggs in the basket, so to speak, the more deals there were to be made. There was moreover a major change on the agenda: further enlargement of the EU membership. Not only the heads of government had to convene, but national and European parliament members must now become involved in the negotiations. The outcome was the European Convention. It was not the most inspiring piece of work and consisted largely of playing on words. Yet the result was a more grandiose text: a European Constitution.” “The European Parliament was to have a say in every area. In those fields where member states shared sovereignty, the public would also have a voice. The European Union developed towards a filling bigger role for Europe. There was to be a Minister of Foreign Affairs, and European laws would take the place of EU directives. The constitution moreover placed European laws above national laws. People panicked.” “That campaign involved me personally. Our message was not getting across. GroenLinks welcomed the Constitution – not as the end of the story, but as a step in the right direction. My personal conviction is that we can no longer deal with many of the problems of this globalized world as individual nations. This applies not only to environmental pollution, but also to globalized trade. We must agree among ourselves to set limits to the power of the business world. We can’t do that as one country alone. A multinational company will be inclined to say, okay, we’ll go to Belgium instead.” “Other parties used different arguments. Partij voor de Dieren, the Dutch animal rights and welfare party, campaigned against the constitution. They said, ‘a yes to the constitution is a yes to bullfighting.’ Somewhere in the European Constitution, it was stated that the EU should not annul European cultural traditions. Partij voor de Dieren stood shoulder to shoulder with the socialist party SP, whose standpoint was ‘no to the super-state’. What the Labour Party, PvdA, did was pure demagogy: ‘We’re also against bullfighting, but saying no to the European Union won’t put a stop to it.’” The Dutch and French voters rejected the Constitution. “A period of reflection followed. The Germans waited until after the Dutch elections. Then the heads of government convened again. A new treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, emerged. Many of the changes were only symbolic. The Minister of Foreign Affairs turned into a High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The flag, the anthem and the motto disappeared from the treaty text. European Laws went back to being EU Directives. The passage that elevated European legislation above national legislation was scrapped. Instead, there was a statement that the jurisprudence would remain unchanged. According to that jurisprudence, European laws still overrode national laws. And that is a good thing
2
too. Otherwise every new accord reached in Brussels could be undermined by individual countries refusing to take part.” “My first reaction to those changes was ‘big deal!’ But those symbols stood for something grander, namely the ‘soul of Europe’. Without them, it means you are opting for a purely pragmatic union, which regulates matters only in a large number of limited areas. So what is important about the Treaty of Lisbon? Practically all fields of action now fall under the first, supranational, pillar. In this pillar, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have an equal say.” “The powers Europe that has depend on the area. In education, its role is only a supplementary one. But the EU has much deeper involvement in matters of the environment, and it enjoys exclusive competence when it comes to trade policies. The EU has little say on social policy, but much more on working conditions. The working environment concept is therefore now greatly expanded. Labour participation is part of a healthy working environment. Consider the releasing of data on air travel passengers: is that a matter of privacy, or of foreign policy? The European Parliament decided that European airlines must adhere to European privacy standards. That is a matter for the European Parliament. But the Council of Ministers saw it as subject to an accord with the United States, and thus a matter of foreign policy in which the European Parliament has no say. Competences in specific areas are continually being widened. As a result, there is an ongoing dispute over competences. The power of the European Parliament “The European Parliament has shown its muscle on several occasions. First of all, MEPs choose the president of the European Commission, who in turn draws up a list of candidate commissioners. The European Parliament can only reject or accept the proposed Commission in its entirety. So far the Parliament has never rejected a Commission, although things came close to that in 2004. That year, José Manuel Barroso drew up the list of candidates for the European Commission. Guy Verhofstadt and Tony Blair had both hoped to become the Chairman of the European Commission, but neither of them succeeded. The heads of government chose Barroso because he came from Portugal and seemed to lack personal ambition. Barroso asked the heads of government to nominate their candidates for the Commission membership. In the Netherlands, Cees Veerman, the then Minister of Agriculture, hoped to win the same portfolio in the European Commission. Barroso promised the Netherlands a better portfolio if they were prepared to nominate a woman. So Neelie Kroes took the place of Veerman.” “The Italians put forward the Christian Democrat Rocco
Kathalijne Buitenweg: Love for the Muddle that is Europe
Buttiglione. I had the privilege of posing the first question on behalf of the European Parliament. Buttiglione’s standpoints appalled me: women belonged in the kitchen, and homos were dirty and repulsive. No one thought that the European Parliament would show its teeth.” After all, the only way to block the appointment of Buttiglione was to reject the whole proposed Commission. “The Netherlands held the chairmanship of the EU at the time. At that time Dutch prime-minister Balkenende was absent because he had a serious foot infection. Queen Beatrix was on a visit to the European Parliament at the time and top officials were dealing with her visit. No representative of the European Council was therefore present in the Parliament at the time of the vote, which provoked irritation as it seemed the Council had no confidence in the proposed Commission. When the EP is nettled and a point has to be decided, things can happen. Barroso withdrew his Commission proposal. Representatives of countries or parties? “Members of the European Parliament are elected on a national basis. The Netherlands has 26 MEPs, Malta 6 and Germany 96. That means that a Maltese MEP represents far fewer people than a German one. It is a good thing if every country has enough MEPs in the parliament. Consider a law on the banks of water channels. Suppose a Bulgarian MEP prepares a report on the topic and advises that agricultural chemicals must not be sprayed within one and a half metres of the waterway. For the Netherlands, it would mean losing half its agricultural land if farmers had to stay that far away from every water channel. The problems are very different here from in Bulgaria. The European Parliament has a representative character in this respect.”
Members of the European Parliament not only represent their national interest, but their standpoints also depend on their political outlook. “Consider the pesticides used in the commercial cultivation of tulips. The VVD party regards them as beneficial to the Dutch tulip industry. A GroenLinks person would say that something must be done about it, because the chemicals are harmful to the agricultural workers. Each of them represents a particular interpretation of national interest.” “The European Parliament is therefore organized into political groups. I did not sit with members of the Dutch parties CDA or VVD, but with the German Greens. It has always been that way. Wim van der Camp from CDA once convened a meeting of the Orange Council, which consisted of all the Dutch MEPs. It was about the possibility of taking ones bicycle along in the Thalys high speed train. I never heard any more about it.” The extreme right party of Geert Wilders “PVV (Party for Freedom) is grouped among the non- inscrits. But now they want to join a political group because that is more attractive. It is easier to take action because you then share a budget, motions and speaking time.” Being a member of a parliamentary group has other advantages too. “You follow your group in the European Parliament. No one has the time and opportunity to read all the reports that come out. Besides, MEPs act on behalf of their parliamentary group. There is no question of a strict group discipline, but the level of cohesion is considerable. For the Greens it is 95 percent. You get a voting list with plus and minus signs. You simply have to follow the list when a vote takes place. That can take hours, because the European Parliament is a law making machine.”
This report was written by Simon Otjes and translated into English by Vic Joseph. © Green European Foundation & Bureau de Helling, January 2014 The views expressed in this article are those of the authors’ alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Green European Foundation. With support of the European Parliament. Green European Foundation asbl 1, rue du Fort Elisabeth, 1463 Luxembourg Brussels Office: 15 rue d’Arlon, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 234 65 70 - Fax: +32 2 234 65 79 E - mail: info@gef.eu - Web: www.gef.eu
3