Europe & the Netherlands Assessing the increased European awareness within the Dutch society and the role of Europe in the Dutch House of Representatives Bachelor Thesis The Hague School for European Studies (HEBO) Haagse Hogeschool Name student: Karen Snaterse ID-code: 20045546 Specialisation: Public Administration HEBO supervisor: Mr. T.A. Parlevliet Place and date: The Hague, 16 May 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 The research question....................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Research methods............................................................................................................. 5 2. The European Constitution..................................................................................................... 6 2.1 The structure of the European Constitution ..................................................................... 6 2.2 The position of Dutch politics regarding the European Constitution............................... 7 2.3 The Dutch referendum ..................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 The referendum campaign............................................................................................. 9 2.3.3 The referendum outcome ............................................................................................ 12 2.4 Why did the Dutch vote ‘No’? ....................................................................................... 13 3. The Lisbon Treaty ................................................................................................................ 19 3.1 The Dutch government's actions following the referendum outcome............................ 19 3.2 The Lisbon Treaty .......................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Critical evaluations......................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 24 4. The House of Representatives and Europe .......................................................................... 25 4.1 The Dutch House of Representatives............................................................................. 25 4.2 Advisory reports............................................................................................................. 27 4.2.1 Main recommendations............................................................................................... 31 4.2.2 Other recommendations .............................................................................................. 34 4.3 The House of Representatives and Europe .................................................................... 36 4.3.1 What recommendations have been realized? .............................................................. 36 4.3.2 What recommendations are still being developed?..................................................... 39 4.3.3 Other initiatives........................................................................................................... 40 4.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 43 5. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 44 5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 44 5.2 Overall conclusion.......................................................................................................... 46 6. Bibliography......................................................................................................................... 48 Appendices............................................................................................................................... 54 1. Introduction ‘The EU must cease to be an ever expanding, elite project imposed by politicians on the public; instead it must win back the confidence and support of the people it was intended to help’. (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p.3) In 2007, the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome was celebrated. During these 50 years of European integration both Europe and the Netherlands have become stronger. Even though the Netherlands has had different governments over the years, every single one acknowledged the ‘importance of European integration for the future’ (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p.1). Due to the country’s ‘geographical location’ in Europe and its ‘open economy’, the Netherlands has greatly benefited from European integration (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p.1). However, over the years the character of European integration has changed. New treaties were developed and signed. The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Treaty of Rome, came into force in 1958 and the Treaty of the European Union, also known as the Treaty of Maastricht, came into force in 1993. These two treaties both ushered in new phases in the European integration process (Zwaan, 2005, p. 123). The Treaty of Maastricht is of special importance here, because with this treaty the EU took a new turn and European integration was given a political dimension. The EU became more intrusive and at the same time less familiar, because of the accession of many new member states into the EU. From this moment on, Europe brought on a more political and social discussion. However, Dutch politics insufficiently translated this growing political context into a new way of dealing with European policy making (Timmermans, 2007, p. 1). Since the EU’s foundation, its competences and responsibilities have extended considerably. No policy area has remained untouched and the geographical reach of European cooperation has been enlarged as well (Zwaan, 2005, p. 123). From 2003-2007, EU enlargement proceeded rapidly and the EU went from 15 to 27 member states (Zwaan, 2008, p. 19). In 2004, the European Constitution represented a new phase of the constitutional developments of the European integration process (Zwaan, 2005, p. 123). The European Constitution was supposed to make the EU more democratic and transparent (Aarts & Kolk, 2005, p. 10). In many member states the debate about the ratification of the treaty came to a successful end. However, France and the Netherlands decided to organise a referendum about the new treaty, which resulted in a negative outcome in both countries (Zwaan, 2008, p. 19). Thereafter, it became impossible to proceed with the ratification process of the European Constitution. The European Constitution became the first treaty 2 not to be ratified by the EU member states. Eventually, the treaty was reformed into a new treaty, called the Lisbon Treaty. The European Constitution brought on a broad discussion in all the member states. It became apparent that people had started to question if the EU ‘in its current form is able to meet present and future challenges’ (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p. 1). Many people feel that the EU is moving too fast and they have ‘lost faith in European cooperation’ (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p. 2). The EU needs to work better and people’s confidence in the EU as a protector of their interests needs to be restored. With so many new member states, the EU is presented with ‘new challenges’ for which ‘only a European response can offer real solutions’ (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p. 3). Not only did the EU expand in size and diversity, but it has also become ‘more intrusive’ (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p. 3). The Euro was introduced and EU policy has become more influential in almost all policy areas. People are faced with the ‘consequences of EU decisions’ on a regular basis, when at the same time European institutions are perceived to be very distant (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p. 3). Unavoidably, this has resulted in problems. People agree that the EU should concentrate on border crossing issues and leave other issues for the member states to handle. Both ‘individual identity and what binds Europeans together’ are important aspects that should be considered (House of Representatives of the States-General, 2007, p. 2). The Dutch government has now made it a priority to restore people’s confidence in the EU. The Dutch Cabinet has come up with a plan of action to improve the communication with the Dutch citizens about Europe (Keulen & Rood, 2008, p. 5). However, this is not the only problem the Netherlands is facing. The Dutch Europe policy needs to change. Dutch politics need to realize that times have changed and that they need to adapt to these new circumstances. It has become evident that Dutch Members of Parliament do not pay enough attention to European bills. When new bills are established, the Netherlands does not nearly exercise enough influence. Nevertheless, the country still