Viewpoint: EU engine due for repair

By Atzo Nicolai
Dutch Minister of European Affairs

People are not always impressed with their governments' capacity for decisive action. The general attitude can be summed up by a quote from the BBC series Yes, Minister: "Government has the engine of a lawnmower and the brakes of a Rolls-Royce."

The reality is less alarming. In many countries, governments actually succeed in governing. Or if they fail, chances are that they will get their just deserts at election time.

Nicolai: Draft is in line with many Dutch preferences

That prospect alone should be enough to inspire political leaders to take firm action.

But firm action depends on more than political will. It also relies on sensible decision-making procedures.

In today's European Union, there are 15 member states, each one with a vote. In May 2004, they will be joined by 10 new member states, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, bringing the total to 25.

The newcomers' enthusiasm and their eagerness for a piece of the action are a sign of the EU's success. But ironically, enlargement could deal a serious blow to the EU. Unless the organisation reforms its decision-making procedures, it may even grind to a halt.

What Europe needs is more democracy and decisiveness. That was the Netherlands' message at the recent convention on the future of the EU, a message we will be emphasising at the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC).

To preserve its vitality, the EU needs to boost its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Yes to stronger parliament

Thanks to our active role in the convention, the draft constitution for the EU is in line with many of the Netherlands' preferences. Our influence is visible in the provisions that divide power between the commission, the European Parliament and national governments.

In any true democracy, parliament plays a pivotal role, as an expression of the will of the people - the European Parliament has not always been able to live up to that ideal

For example, the draft constitution gives the commission new authority, which it can use to remain a driving force in the EU after enlargement.

We fully endorse this proposal. As a powerful, vigilant guardian of the treaties, it encourages the member states to remain committed. In the larger EU of the future, that job will be even more important.

The draft constitution also gives more powers to the European Parliament - something that badly needed to be done. In any true democracy, parliament plays a pivotal role, as an expression of the will of the people. The European Parliament has not always been able to live up to that ideal.

By giving it full budgetary powers and an enhanced right of co-decision, we can take a historic step, strengthening the influence of the EU's only directly elected body.

Yes to more QMV

I am also pleased that the draft constitution extends qualified majority voting to many new areas. That will make the EU more democratic and decisive by ensuring that lone member states cannot obstruct important decisions.

The draft constitution also gives national parliaments a greater say. They can call the commission to account when they believe that a proposal is not compatible with the subsidiarity principle, which states that decisions must be made at the right level (either nationally or in the EU). This is definitely an improvement.

Disaffection is likely if the council president acts as a "Sun King"

All in all, I am fairly satisfied with the way the draft constitution allocates powers among the institutions.

But that does not mean that all the Netherlands' wishes have come true. We would very much like to see the European Parliament play a more prominent role in electing the president of the commission. Besides boosting the parliament's authority, it would enhance the legitimacy of the commission's president.

Furthermore, qualified majority voting could be extended to areas that now sometimes require unanimity, such as social policy, environmental matters and trade in services.

However, the Netherlands favours unanimity for decisions on financial matters. This is a logical position to adopt, considering that for years the Netherlands has been one of the largest net contributors to the EU.

Not keen on president

Furthermore, the draft constitution calls for an elected chairman of the European Council. The Netherlands did not support this proposal.

The Netherlands can certainly live with the draft constitution, but we see definite room for improvement

The current system of a rotating presidency works well and has the advantage of keeping all the member states involved. An elected president might lead to disaffection, especially if he became a kind of autocratic Sun King.

Now that the Convention has agreed on safeguards, by placing clear limits on the authority of the chairman (not president) and the term of office, the Netherlands is willing to accept the idea.

But I believe more could be done. It is important for the office to be open to citizens of any member state and the election of subsequent presidents should adequately reflect the demographic and geographic variety within the European Union.

The Netherlands can certainly live with the draft constitution, but we see definite room for improvement. The question is whether better alternatives will be proposed at the IGC. A great deal will depend on the points raised by the other member states and candidate countries.

The more points that are opened up for debate, the more the Netherlands will have to say, and vice versa. But our goal will remain unchanged: a more democratic and decisive Europe. For one thing is clear: the EU's engine and its brakes are both due for an overhaul.