International

The SP is well-known to be an EU-critical party, and we are certainly that. No interference from Brussels and an end to the 30-year-old bond between the petty dictators in that city and the multinationals – these are what we stand for, along with such things as putting a stop to the revolving door which has delivered nice jobs to ex-Commissioners like Barroso, Kroes and now also the Dane Connie Hedegaard at major financial institutions and corporations. This revolving door leads, as anyone can see, to an unhealthy conflict of interests. But the SP works hard also on legislation which is good for ordinary people, such as the EU directive on legal aid which is a help in the fight against class justice. This week the results of the tough negotiations with the member states on this, which I conducted as the European Parliament’s Rapporteur on the proposal, will come before the member states, and we’ll be voting in favour.

It’s true that we SP Euro-MPs vote most often against things. This is because we look very carefully at the interests that lie hidden behind each resolution and item of legislation. Very often we find that these are the interests of the multinationals. We also always vote against any transfer of new powers to the European Commission. No more powers should go in that direction unless the Dutch people, preferably via a referendum, have had the chance to express their views.

But there is another side to this, too. As rapporteur I have been able to write a great many resolutions in my own name - as well as, now, an actual legislative report, on legal aid. This report is important, because it would, for instance, make it impossible in the Netherlands to starve the existing system of legal aid of funds. If a Dutch citizen is extradited to another member state, moreover, he or she would know that they will have the right to a lawyer even if they can’t afford to pay for such. And in the case of many east Europeans, it would mean that a decent system of legal aid would have to be set up. These are all measure which would benefit vulnerable people.

But does all of this therefore have to be regulated by ‘Brussels’? In this case the answer is yes. As a result of the abolition of border controls between the member states , criminals too can ‘travel freely’ through Europe. This has led to countries’ having to cooperate more closely in the area of justice, and to their having expressed the fact that they have confidence in each other’s legal systems. This confidence extends so far that a Dutch citizen accused of a crime in another member state can be extradited without the usual application of strict tests. Trust is a good thing, of course, but if it turns out that the rights which suspects have in a particular member state fail to measure up, then it’s best to set a limit on your trust. And that’s precisely why I’ve argued for a European law that does just that, and simply and wholly because this is about providing protection from class justice. The next measure that comes up I’ll likely be voting against. But on this occasion I’m in favour.