International

In September the European Parliament will begin its deliberations on the proposals from the Belgian Liberal Guy Verhofstadt for a superstate complete with European ministers. At the same time four eastern member states, including Slovakia, which since 1st July has held the EU’s rotating presidency, have announced their intentions to come up with concrete proposals for a looser EU, one in which national parliaments would have more say. We in the SP are against a superstate, because we believe in giving as much control as possible to people over their own lives and their own surroundings. So we see the clash between Verhofstadt – and likely many other MEPs – and the Slovakian EU presidency as a chance to present our own ideas - such as the abolition of the European Commission - formally in both the Dutch national Parliament and the EP.

Many journalists thought that the Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands and then the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom would represent the high points of the discussion of a different European Union. Certainly, these were important referenda, if only because they allowed us to see that most voters had turned their backs on the actually existing EU. The real fight over the direction of the EU is, however, yet to come. That will depend not so much on how the British give shape to their Brexit. Of much greater interest will be to see just where the Slovakians are going. In common with the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs they find that the power of the European Commission is out of balance and that they have had enough of national parliaments having less and less of a say.

At the same time Verhofstadt has translated his dreams of a superstate into a report for the European Parliament, a report which is in essence a discussion paper which will in its final form be a resolution on which the entire EP will vote. As a MEP, I will until then have the right to present amendments to the text. As I disagree with virtually everything Verhofstadt proposes, I intend to make good use of this. No further transfer of powers, as he puts forward, with European Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and no European Finance Ministers. No European taxes à la Verhofstadt and no further restriction of the powers of national parliaments in relation to social and economic policy.

The only proposals in which I see anything with which I can agree is his idea of having two kinds of membership: a full membership, under which one’s country would become one of the United States of Europe, and an associate membership, which would allow each state to decide for itself in which aspects it did and did not participate. Verhofstadt thinks that this would only go for peripheral countries, such as Greece or the member states of eastern Europe. He underestimates, however, the mood in the ‘old’ member states. Such a form of associate membership could also be extremely interesting to France and, depending on the precise details, also for the Netherlands.

Our proposal for a different EU would mean the end of the European Commission in its present form. It would also mean the end of the system under which member states can be overruled by a majority of other member states. We want to return to a situation in which we control our own public services, such as social housing, when we could simply say no to EU decisions in these policy areas. The same goes for our budgetary policies. As for new European taxes, we certainly don’t go along with that. If we can achieve all of this via a Verhofstadt-style associated membership or via the Slovakian proposals for greater flexibility, then we’ll be heading for a fine autumn.

The knives are being sharpened, but before that we have two more weeks of recess. This means that the next weeklog won’t appear until the 28th August. Till then, this is wishing three fine weeks of summer to all my readers.