THE 28 VISIONS OF EUROPE: VIEW OF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT

The Dutch view of Europe is reflected in a policy document setting out nine broad principles and 54 specific recommendations. The guiding principle is described as "European where necessary, national where possible" and calls for a European Union that is more modest, more sober and at the same time more effective. The document calls for a significant scaling back of EU powers and notes that the Dutch Presidency in the first half of 2016 could play a role in promoting such an agenda.

The Dutch have explicitly said that they don't want EU treaty change and the government proclaims that the time of an ever closer union in every possible policy area is behind us.

The 9 General Principles include:

1. Action taken by the EU should always be motivated by citing a clear legal basis in the Treaties. This basis should be concisely formulated and clearly related to the proposed action. The Commission should refrain from introducing proposals with an indirect or uncertain legal basis (‘creeping competences’).

2. If the Treaties do not give the EU competence in a specific policy area and the Commission thus cannot propose legislation, it should in principle also refrain from issuing non-binding communications or recommendations or taking an activist approach to that policy area in some other way.

3. When there are widely shared objections to EU legislation in the Council, for example on grounds of subsidiarity, political agreements may be made between the Council and Commission – without the ‘acquis’ needing to be modified – determining that the Commission will refrain from taking any further initiative in that area.

4. EU legislation should focus wherever possible on the main lines of policy and on the goals to be attained, rather than prescribing in detail how those goals should be achieved. Unnecessary details and too much emphasis on uniformity in EU legislation can have a needless and undesirable impact on national implementing modalities and costs. Wherever possible, member states should be given scope to use the means that are most effective in their specific situation in attaining the end in view.

5. The Commission should be as explicit as possible in its proposals about the details of implementation costs and other costs at both EU and national level entailed by EU legislation.

6. To ensure that EU legislation is designed in a way proportional to the end in view, better and more systematic use could be made of impact assessments. Sunset and evaluation clauses should be incorporated in proposals where necessary so that modifications can be made to deal with any unforeseen adverse consequences.

7. Member states should be involved as much as possible whenever EU legislation that affects them is being drafted and considered through implementing acts, delegated acts or implementation and elaboration by EU agencies. All these processes should take as much account as possible of the implementation practices in the member states. There are still examples of legislation that has major consequences for member states in whose elaboration member states are insufficiently involved.

8. If the EU Court of Justice interprets EU legislation in a way that EU legislators did not foresee or intend, the problem should be addressed as much as possible by modifying the EU legislation on which the Court based its judgment. Sometimes a Court judgment lays bare tensions between the Union’s policy objectives and those of the member states. Such situations should be avoided as far as possible, and parties to both national and EU legislative processes should adopt a proactive approach to this end.

9. The opportunity offered when a new European Commission takes office in 2014 should be seized to review the priority assigned to all the EU’s different tasks. These recommendations and the list below of points for action drawn up by the Netherlands could be translated into an action agenda for a more modest, more sober but more effective EU, starting from the principle: ‘at European level only when necessary, at national level whenever possible’. The Dutch EU Presidency in the first half of 2016 could play a role in promoting such an agenda.

The Dutch government has also drawn up 54 specific recommendations i.e. individual measures where EU power should be scaled back.

List of points for action (grouped by Council configuration)

• General Affairs (Regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties; Salary increase for EU staff; EU agencies; EU budget).
• Foreign Affairs (Regulation establishing the European voluntary humanitarian aid corps EU Aid Volunteers; Directive on consular protection for citizens of the Union abroad).
• Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) (Regulation on the Community Customs Code; Regulation on Community statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states; Regulation laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products).
• Economic and Financial Affairs (Financial Transaction Tax (FTT); ‘Shock absorption fund’ for euro countries; Direct taxation; Non-harmonised indirect taxation; Tax related infringement proceedings; Insurance of natural and man-made disasters; Insurance guarantee schemes; Directive on payment accounts).
• Justice and Home Affairs (Directive on family reunification; Directive on the admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, etc.; Proposals to harmonise the law of criminal procedure; Proposals to harmonise substantive criminal law; Sectoral social dialogue committee for central government administrations)
• Agriculture and fisheries (Possible legislation on pan-European forestry agreement; Implementing Regulation on marketing standards for olive oil; EU programme for school milk and fruit).
• Environment (Environmental Noise Directive; Environmental impact assessments; Water Framework Directive; Air Quality Directive (fine particulate matter); Proposed Directive on maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management; Soil Framework Directive; Floods Directive; Climate, renewable energy and biofuels).
• Education/Youth Affairs/Culture/Sport (Media freedom and pluralism; Court judgment on portable student support for higher education).
• Transport/Telecommunications/Energy (Tunnel Safety Directive; Opening the market for passenger transport by rail (Fourth Railway Package); Preference for global legislation over EU legislation; Telecom package; Regulation on reducing the cost of broadband; Directive on the accessibility of public-sector websites; Directive on the energy performance of buildings;  Energy efficiency).
• Employment/Social Policy/Public Health/Consumer Affairs (European Globalisation Adjustment Fund; External dimension of social security coordination; Social security systems; Regulation on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived; Directive on improving gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges; Revision of Pension Fund (IORP) Directive; Portability of supplementary pension rights; Safety, health and welfare legislation; Directive on Equal Treatment outside the Labour Market; Directive on extending maternity leave; Organ Donation Directive).