In the debate on Europe, emotion is drowning out common sense to such an extent that we have now entered the zone of facts free politics. Will ‘Europe’ and ‘democracy’ find each other or will they become estranged, never to meet again? asks Ton van den Brink.

The debate on Europe and democracy is not progressing beyond the trenches of sovereignty cramps on the one hand and an uncritical welcoming of all aspects of EU integration on the other. That is a great pity because it obscures the very real problems we are facing. Europe will play a big part in the upcoming elections. It’s time we took a closer look at some of these problems.

It’s not easy for a legal expert to explain the ins and outs of the recent measures to combat the crisis (‘Six pack’, the fiscal compact, ESM). But what he can elaborate upon is what lies at the heart of the matter: are we handing over power to the EU? Or to put it in more emotive terms: are we losing part of our national sovereignty?  

Integration via the back door

To prime minister Mark Rutte, the Maastricht Treaty constituted a turning point forming as it did the basis of (further) economic and monetary cooperation. According to some, the recent strengthening of the European control mechanisms are simply part of an ongoing trend. Others say that the moment the European Commission can intervene directly in the economic and budgetary decisions of the member states will herald the true shift in power in Europe.

Both statements are correct.

We are confronted with a systemic characteristic of European integration, one that was deliberately put in place by the founders of the EU. The idea was not to have a blue print for cooperation but to cooperate where concrete problems arose. As solutions were being found, other aspects would come into view which also needed to be tackled. An example of this is the opening of the borders which has led the way to a common policy to fight international crime. In this way integration grows organically, or to put it negatively, it sneaks in via the back door.

This method has become controversial. It makes European integration and what it stands for difficult to grasp. Citizens already troubled by the many insecurities facing them in the present political constellation will see European integration as yet another source of insecurity. And feelings of insecurity will give populists a chance to offer their own version of European integration.

Another danger is fatalism. Integration via the back door suggests inevitability, as if integration were an unstoppable force of nature. The suggestion is that there is a straight line between the 1950s wish to avoid war and to foster prosperity and the concrete measures shaping Europe at the moment. That brings us to our second major problem.

A gate around the Netherlands?

At a time when big decisions need to be made about the future of Europe, politicians and society are suffering from ‘sovereignty cramps’. The Dutch never used to make much of the link between EU membership and national sovereignty. But things have changed and now it has become almost impossible to mention the EU without raising the subject of sovereignty. Europhiles will invariably maintain that the concept of national government has become obsolete at the start of the 21^st century.  

But that would be to deny the political and societal reality, the impulse to put a sovereignty gate around the Netherlands so that safely ensconced behind the dikes we can do whatever we like without any outside interference. Paradoxically, this attitude is leading to an increasingly weaker national grip on our economy and society. Our links with the rest of the world are many and we can only muster the administrative clout to face the challenges of today if we work together. We have to, if only to cope with the dangers other countries surrounded by sovereignty gates might pose.  

EU is Rutte’s candy store

Another way is to keep an eye on national interests in the European integration process. National sovereignty would then be expressed in the advantages European cooperation brings. It is the way caretaker prime minister Rutte likes best: the EU membership as a pick and mix candy store. In this particular vision a few concessions are alright as long as the final score is positive.

But the EU membership is not made up of separate decisions, rules and measures to be translated into national advantages and disadvantages. Every next step in the integration process binds us further with the other European countries, their people, their values and their economic and societal characteristics. This takes a heavy toll on mutual solidarity. The EU membership is much more than the concrete measures being taken at the moment and voters know it.

Choice

If we want national sovereignty to mean anything at all we should go back to the origin of the term. It stood for self determination, the idea that a country and its people chose their own destiny. It also includes the choice to enter into a lasting and comprehensive union with other EU countries based on upholding the rule of law and democratic social and economic principles. A re-definition of sovereignty will reconcile Europe and democracy and provide us with the tools to tackle the present problems.

Ton van den Brink is professor of European Law at the Europa Institute of the University of Utrecht.

 This article was published earlier on the website Sociale Vraagstukken