Een sympathieke stelling, die de abonnees van deze mailinglist zeker zou moeten inspireren tot het posten van een reactie. Hieronder een afschrift van mijn vriendelijke antwoord aan minister De Boer. De lengte ervan is helaas evenredig aan mijn waardering voor haar woorden.
===
Dear Mrs. De Boer,
I greatly appreciate your position. But allow me to wonder if this is also the position of your colleagues in the Dutch government, especially those who are currently presiding the negotiations on a new EU Treaty: minister Hans van Mierlo and state secretary Michiel Patijn. I have some questions on their commitment to the environment, which I will formulate below. First your position: I infer from these words that in the present European Union, the environment is not of equal importance as the internal market and the single currency (the 'Euro' as it has been so unimaginatively baptized). Yet - you probably agree - it is the very existence of the internal market (the free movement of goods, services and capital between the 15 member states and the harmonization of laws to facilitate this trade) that calls for a strong EU environmental policy. 'Fair competition' on a 'level playing field' demands environmental minimum standards respected by all member states. Competition in the internal market will become tougher as soon as member states share one currency: cross-border transactions will be easier and prices will be comparable at a glance. So monetary union will encourage 'environmental dumping' unless it is accompanied by an offensive EU environmental policy. Such a policy is all the more urgent because production and consumption in Europe are already far from 'sustainable'. We're using up an unfairly great share of the earth's resources, to the detriment of people in the South and future generations.
Of course, all of this is no news to you. You also know that the ability of the European Union to implement 'greener' policies depends to a great extent on the goals and competences attributed to its institutions by the EU Treaty, and to the decision-making procedures this Treaty provides for. So we need to 'green' the EU Treaty. The current Treaty of Maastricht gives the EU only limited competences in the field of environmental policy. The most important 'green' measures, like ecotaxes, can be blocked by any one member state using its veto. (Remember that the legislation needed to create the internal market was adopted so quickly because of the absence of a national veto right.) Other environmental measures can be adopted by qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers, but the European Parliament has only a limited say in these matters. This undemocratic procedure undermines public acceptance of EU policies. It also affects the quality of EU legislation, since the EP holds 'greener' views than the majority of member states.
Dear minister, if you want to 'green' the EU Treaty before the advent of monetary union (foreseen in 1999), it has to be done in the current negotiations on the revision of the Treaty of Maastricht. The fact that the Dutch government is presiding the final phase of these talks between the governements of the member states should be helpful. I know the negotiations are taking place behind closed doors, but I hope you'll be willing to lift the veil of secrecy on a few issues. Here are my questions:
1. Has the Dutch presidency proposed to introduce QMV for ecotaxes? I happened to read a 'non-paper' by state secretary Patijn which suggests QMV for the relevant Treaty article (130S paragraph 2). But the same non-paper also says that fiscal measures should continue to require unanimity in the Council. That seems a bit contradictory, since ecotaxes are evidently fiscal measures. Will you please enlighten me on this? (If Patijn doesn't let you read his secret non-papers you can always check the homepage of GroenLinks MEP Nel van Dijk, who is publishing these interesting documents on the Internet, without authorization. Naughty Nel's URL is http://www.xs4all.nl/~nelvdijk). Do you think that QMV for ecotaxes stands a realistic chance of being agreed when the government leaders of the member states meet in Amsterdam in June to conclude the new Treaty? If not, isn't it time for some action? If only to save the Treaty: do you think the citizens of Denmark, who will judge on the new Treaty in a referendum and who already are a bit Eurosceptic, will like the new Treaty if their government's proposal for QMV on ecotaxes has been thrown in the dustbin?
2. Will the new Treaty strengthen the so-called 'environmental guarantee'? No doubt you agree with me that we should be happy if member states adopt tougher environmental policies than the (too) minimal standards prescribed by EU law. Still, the European Commission sometimes tries to forbid such national initiatives because it says they distort trade. This sort of action makes Europe lose some of its best friends, those in the environmental movement who understand the need for European cooperation better than most of us. A stronger wording of the 'environmental guarantee' in the EU Treaty could prevent such unfortunate incidents in the future. Do you agree with me that that would be highly desirable? Will the Dutch presidency make a serious effort to reinforce the 'environmental guarantee'?
3. Can you assure me that, whenever the Dutch presidency propopes introducing QMV for environmental and other measures, it will also try to introduce the right of co-decision for the European Parliament? You know that when decisions in the Council of Ministers are taken by QMV, national parliaments loose their grip on it. Their minister can be outvoted in Council. So democratic control on the Council has to come from another elected body, the EP. Frankly, I don't have much confidence in the quality of future EU legislation, if ministers are unwilling to let any democratically elected representative in on it. And I think many European citizens will turn their backs to the EU if ever more decisions are taken in secret Council meetings, without parliamentary debate and voting, without public discussion and involvement of NGOs. With such a rise in Euroscepticism, the integration process could come to a halt. We don't want that, you and I. There is so much more to be done in the Union, before it can be called a sustainable Union. So please don't make me have to choose between a rock and a hard place, between swallowing a Treaty which increases the democratic deficit and rejecting the next step in European integration. And please forward this heartfelt cry to Van Mierlo and Patijn.
Your colleague and party leader Wim Kok hopes to sign the new EU Treaty during the Amsterdam Summit in June. The text of the Treaty will strengthen the Union's commitment to sustainable development. All the member states agree that this should become one of the main goals of the EU. But these words are hollow if the EU doesn't get the instruments to make the promise come true, if it doesn't get the degree of democracy and transparancy it needs to regain public confidence in its endeavours. If your fellow social-democrat Kok disappoints you, if he brokers a Treaty which is bad news for both the environment and democracy, if he is nevertheless proud of it, if he stands there padding Hans and Michiel on the back - "We did it, boys, we did it" - while you think "How on earth am I going to sell this Treaty to the public, to my civil servants, to my friends in the environmental movement?", well, in that case you should know that you can always change sides. Give up the lonely place at the top that you never seemed happy with anyway, find new political friends. Friends who are more seriously committed to both sustainable development and European democracy. I promise I will put in a word for you.
Richard Wouters
member of GroenLinks (the Green Left party of the Netherlands)
Want to see my picture? Check out: http://www.dds.nl/~groen-l/europa/glieg.html