The Dutch position. There is now a new subject for debate and negotiation within the EU. A number of member states have expressed their opinion in favour of wider national autonomy in relation to the Community institutions - and sometimes they have even stated this in official positions. Leaving the British case aside (with the very issue of the UK staying permanently in the EU being at stake), the Dutch government has spoken openly in a note sent to its parliament (see EUROPE 10874).
Let me recall a few explicit assertions in this Dutch document - in the EU, “the time for an ever closer union in all domains is now over”; the population does not accept a union in which “the scope of activity is constantly growing as if it was an objective in itself”. Action should be taken at the European level when this is necessary; and the Amsterdam note mentions issues that in the Netherlands' opinion do not need Community rules - for example, the obligatory quota of women on company boards, standards on noise, and the regulation on forests. According to this document, the European Commission ought to examine the cost of Community involvement on a case-by-case basis.
The document also mentions domains where the European dimension is indeed needed - the economic and financial crisis, energy, the climate, the right to asylum, migration, and completing the single market. Overall, it can be seen that the document does not in the slightest reject Community activity. Quite the opposite, in fact - Community activity is actually required for most of the essential domains.
The French principle. France has defended the autonomy of member states from another point of view - that of implementing decisions taken at European level (especially as part of the common policies). National autonomy would concern the measures of application. In practice, objectives and commitments are always established together, leaving the measures for application up to the member states. It is the president of the French Republic himself who has strongly asserted this principle.
The case of Hungary. National autonomy in applying the decisions taken in common is not always simple to put into practice, however. For example, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stood before the European Parliament and defended his country's autonomy. He has rejected “an EU that puts the member states under guardianship” (see EUROPE 10879). His government calls for the autonomy of application and challenges the EU on the power of intervening. The European Parliament has considered that Hungary is overstepping the limits of autonomy admitted and has approved (by majority vote against the vote of the EPP Group) a warning. In the view of the Socialists, this warning must be the last - if Hungary does not produce results, the Socialists will demand use of the article of the Treaty allowing suspension of a member state's right to vote within the Council. The European Commission is examining the Hungarian behaviour.
Reactions in Budapest accuse the European Parliament of breaching the sovereignty of the nations.
Beyond the legal aspect. It is clear, then, that positions differ. The Netherlands contests the intrusion of the EU in domains which the Netherlands considers national, but it accepts and applies the common decisions. France is calling for a certain degree of autonomy in implementing legislation that it has signed up to and that it intends to apply. Hungary wants much wider autonomy. Is this a legal battle? Not only. In fact, the debates mentioned above are taking place in an overall context of reflection on the nature and limits of European unity. The member states have existed for centuries. They have a history and national characteristics that are often very old and glorious. There is absolutely no question of forgetting or neglecting them. At the same time, an enormous share of the management must be common in order for unity to function. It is crucial to reflect on this and to discuss it.
From Barroso to Schauble. In the aim of avoiding an overload of what should be common, let me recall the words of the president of the European Commission in Les Echos - “We can reduce our regulatory activity which is sometimes perceived as intrusive. I agree that we could do less in certain domains.” As for what should be achieved together, let me quote the German minister for finance, Wolfgang Schauble, because his country is sometimes accused of insufficient European solidarity - “We know that we depend on Europe. If it becomes weaker, Germany becomes weaker. We share the same destiny. We don't want to dominate. We know that there is nothing in Europe that we can achieve alone”.
It can be seen, then, that the debate on the balance between the Community and the national is getting down to the nitty gritty. The differences in opinion are normal, as long as the unity aspects are duly safeguarded. (FR/transl.fl)