Dutch ‘subsidiarity review’ strikes a chord with UK euro critics

25-06-2013

Amsterdam canal houses Netherlands Dutch.JPG

The British government hailed yesterday (24 June) a move by the Netherlands to initiate a process in the EU aimed at slashing the number of areas covered by common EU policy and legislation. The European Commission said it would follow the debate and figure out what conclusions to draw from it.

Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans on Friday presented a letter summarising the outcome of a “subsidiarity review” carried out by the government.

Subsidiarity refers to the EU's powers to intervene only where it is able to act more effectively than the member states acting on their own, and provided that EU treaties gives it the right to do so.

The Dutch Foreign Ministry said in a statement that “the time of an ‘ever closer union’ in every possible policy area is behind us”.

In its letter, the government identifies a number of areas it believes should better be left to member states rather than the EU. The list was reportedly compiled with input from all government ministries and stakeholders.

Halting the creeping harmonisation of social security systems and working conditions are among the areas cited in the letter. Other include the regulation of media pluralism, flood risk management (the EU should have a say only on transboundary water courses), and EU programmes for school milk and school fruit, which should be phased out.

The Dutch government said the issue of subsidiarity strikes a chord with many people across Europe. With this initiative, the Netherlands wants to initiate a process based on the principle: ‘European where necessary, national where possible’.

No treaty change sought

First, the list will be discussed with parliament. Then the government will try to gain support for its initiative from the European Commission, European Parliament and other member states.

The Dutch government emphasises that it does not aim to change the EU treaty and that it fully accepts the existing distribution of powers between Europe and the national level. Rather, it is the division of tasks which it argues merits discussion.

London expressed its support to the Dutch initiative. The UK is conducting a “balance of competences review” between Britain and the EU and Prime Minister David Cameron has invited the public to review “competence after competence, area after area”, and express views on “what is right at the European level and what is right at national level”. The exercise ends in the autumn of 2014.

Positions

Background

Comments

0 responses to “Dutch ‘subsidiarity review’ strikes a chord with UK euro critics”

Anonymous says:

25/06/2013 at 10:36

The dutch goverment wants a ever closer union, but the fact remains that the people dont. Rutte and samson are career building and are not the least bit interested in thier own countries and that is a fact ,just ask elco brinkman he knows the truth.
These new proposals are a joke, they seem to leave out what really counts and thats financial/banking/military and of course the ability to say no to brussels, which until now they wont or cant or simply havent got the guts to do so. Maybe its a case of securing your own future.
EU commissioner Rutte or samson ,nice paying job huh.
They know on what side thier bread is buttered.
These are untrustworthy politicians with thier own agendas , sad..

Log in to Reply
Anonymous says:

25/06/2013 at 13:16

Many of the Dutch demands are just playing to the eurosceptic gallery:

• “Europe where necessary, national where possible”, is already in the EU treaties (the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality).

• “Where the European Court of Justice interprets EU law in a way that EU legislators had not provided for and/or did not intend, then this should be possible to address by amending the EU rules”: This is perfectly possible already. Indeed, most EU legislation these days is about amending existing legislation, and there is nothing to stop this being done to adjust for the consequences of Court rulings (themselves only triggered when there is a dispute referred to the Court when parties disagree about what a text means)

• “Every EU intervention needs to be motivated by a clear legal basis in the EU Treaties”. That is the case already.

• “EU legislation should focus on main points to achieve shared goals rather than to prescribe in detail how those goals should be achieved”. That is exactly what EU ‘directives’ do: they lay down the goal to be achieved and leave it to Member States to adapt (if necessary) their national legislation or practices.

• “When there are widely shared objections to EU legislation, there should be a mechanism to stop the Commission taking any further initiative in that area…to stop new EU laws in areas where national governments don’t want them”. Given that the Commission only proposes, while governments in the Council (with elected MEPs in the Parliament) decide, there is no way EU legislation can be adopted unless a very large majority of governments want it! The only exception is where governments have delegated technical implementing powers to the Commission, and even then, they have procedures to block the Commission. The adoption of legislation requires the support of a ‘qualified majority’, which is about 74% of the votes in the Council, and many sensitive matters require unanimity. So, nothing can be adopted anyway unless most governments want it, however much the Commission may want it.

• “Halting the further harmonisation of social security systems.” There hasn’t actually been much ‘harmonisation’- rather the granting of reciprocal rights, but again, this can only happen if and when a very large majority of governments and of MEPs want it.

• “Limiting the EU budget” The budget IS already limited by a double lock: the EU’s resources cannot exceed 1.24% of GDP/GNI and, within that, spending ceilings are laid down for each category of expenditure, by the Member States, acting unanimously in the Council. They cannot be raised unless everyone agrees.

•”A two-year freeze in salaries of EU officials”. That is already ageeed in principle.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous says:

25/06/2013 at 15:43

Netherlands should get the Gulden Currency back if they don’t agree the federal leap for monetary and economic policies !! It ‘s not possible to stand on this dirty economical Level!
It’s their choice ! The right is forward and the bind backwards is the bad one 😉

Log in to Reply
Anonymous says:

25/06/2013 at 15:49

Mostly all hollandese ar in facts pro-european and economically interested for more Europe !
But Timmerman’s doesn’t interests this and act like a illogical incomprehensible Kid!

Log in to Reply

Dutch ‘subsidiarity review’ strikes a chord with UK euro critics

Positions

Background

Further Reading

Governments

Press articles

EURACTIV's editorial content is independent from the views of our sponsors.

Contribute to our reporting

Mella Frewen, Director General of FoodDrinkEurope

Susan Danger, CEO, AmCham EU

Dutch ‘subsidiarity review’ strikes a chord with UK euro critics

Positions

Background

Further Reading

Governments

Press articles

EURACTIV's editorial content is independent from the views of our sponsors.

Topics

Subscribe to our newsletters

Contribute to our reporting

Mella Frewen, Director General of FoodDrinkEurope

Susan Danger, CEO, AmCham EU