The Netherlands is increasingly transferring sovereignty to the European Union, but is that a good or bad development? To answer this, I spoke to Sipke de Vries, lecturer at the Thorbecke Academy of Governance, Customers & Government Management, to delve deeper into the issue.

 

TJ: You previously indicated that the Netherlands is surrendering sovereignty. Do you think this is a good or bad development?

 

SDV: There is of course a lot of uncertainty about this concept of sovereignty transfer. Member states in the EU transfer certain powers, but that often goes against the principle of subsidiarity, which states that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizen. The more decisions are taken at European level, the more this principle is abandoned.

 

TJ: Is it possible that a country can regain certain powers?

 

SDV: In theory that is of course possible, but in practice it is difficult. Member states have a vote on many subjects within the EU Council, but if a country is the only one in the group that wants to regain a certain power, that becomes difficult. Let us take Hungary as an example. They are trying to keep more and more things national, but are often portrayed as anti-EU. However, at the same time they are simply using the powers they still have.”

 

TJ: If you look at the Netherlands, many powers have been transferred to the EU without any referendum. How do you see it?

 

SDV: The last (Second) Chamber elections showed that a significant part of the Dutch population does not agree with the current course of EU integration. Parties such as the PVV and BBB have always been critical of the EU, they have won big, while pro-EU parties such as D66 and VOLT have been severely punished. This is actually the popular mandate from the population. It indicates that they do not agree with the current EU policy. Of course, you can also say that this is how the system works, we elect our representatives and they make decisions on our behalf. If we do not agree with that, we will punish them at the next elections.

 

TJ: The power of the EU partly comes from having developed outside our direct democratic decision-making, it was always the leaders who were in favor in the beginning. But if we look at the European Court of Justice, which is above the national Courts, how do you see that? 

 

SDV: That is partly due to the constitution. Articles 93 and 94 determine how we deal with international treaties that influence our legislation. This means that parliament still has an important voice in this, but if a member state is the only one with a different opinion, it is difficult to oppose that. EU regulations are directly binding, while directives must be implemented by national legislation. That leads to a legal hierarchy in which national laws can fall under European rights. 

 

TJ: Do you think that the European Parliament and the electoral system could be better organized to better represent citizens?

 

SDV: Not necessarily. If you look at smaller countries like Malta, they get six seats in the European Parliament by default, while the Netherlands has more seats based on population. This prevents the EU from becoming something where the large member states have full power, the current system of course also ensures that small countries have a disproportionately large influence on EU policy. A balance is necessary to guarantee good but above all fair decision-making. 

 

TJ: How do you think the EU can better legitimize itself in the eyes of its citizens?

 

SDV: You have to look at the low turnout in the EU elections, it sends a clear signal. In the last elections the turnout was just over 50%, which means that half of the voters do not vote. This indicates a lack of involvement and trust in the EU. One way to strengthen legitimacy could be to give member states more say in the implementation of the European directives. This allows the national government to adapt policy to their own context, this could possibly reduce the gap between Brussels and the Citizen.

 

TJ: If we look at France, they once introduced the Veto right in the EU to protect their own power. Do you think this system will become a stumbling block?

 

SDV: You could actually say that the veto right is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it enables member states to protect crucial national interests. On the other hand, a country can block a complete decision-making process, which undermines the efficiency of the EU. We are already seeing that workarounds are being sought to circumvent the veto right, so that countries that use their veto are ultimately passed over or ignored. In the long term, this can lead to greater tensions between the larger and smaller member states, or the member states with few inhabitants.

 

TJ: Do you see a positive trend in this?

 

SDV: Absolutely, the member states will increasingly make use of the room for manoeuvre that they have been given and have. The only question is how long that can be maintained within the current structure of the EU.

 

TJ: Thank you for your time.

 

SDV: You're welcome.