deBuren

A full house watched a debate on one of the hottest topics on the 26th April. The Euro-MP Annemie Neyts and journalist Ben Van der Velden discussed the theory of 'European powerlessness'. The debate was chaired by the NOS radio correspondent Gert Jan Dennekamp.

The reason for the debate, which was organised by the Machiavelli Foundation Brussels, was the publication of Van der Velden's book, De Europese onmacht. Scènes uit de achterkamers van de Europese Unie (European Powerlessness: Scenes from the Back Rooms at the European Union). Here the former Brussels correspondent of the NRC Handelsblad newspaper expresses a sceptical view of political integration in Europe. He also expressed this view during the debate. Annemie Neyts emphasised the successes of the EU and argued that double standards are frequently applied when European interests conflict with national politics.

In Van der Velden’s view the expansion of the EU to twenty-five member states has reduced the chance of a political Europe even further. The Dutch journalist says that by opting for expansion even before we have debated the type of Europe we really want, means the EU can now never be more than the free-trade zone Great Britain has always wanted. Neyts disagrees with this: "In the history of the Union, expansion and greater depth have always gone hand in hand; and the increased depth always followed expansion".

Van der Velden also questioned the level of democracy in the EU. In his view the European parliament does not deserve its name, as parliamentary elections are not truly European. There is no single European list of candidates whom voters in every country can elect, and people can only vote for their own politicians. Consequently, campaigns are dominated by national themes and national party politics. He informed his opponent that Euro-MPs are generally out to defend their own national interests. Neyts countered this by pointing out that things were not very different within the member states themselves: MPs from Friesland, the province of East Flanders or Limburg were equally adept at standing up for the interests of their own regions. She stated that the only difference lay in the scale on which elections were held. Why should one now suddenly make new demands of democracy where Europe was involved? Moreover, there was no doubt that supranational parties were formed within the European Parliament.

And what about the lack of legislative power for the European Parliament? Neyts: "To be perfectly honest I would hate to think of 732 members of parliament having the right of initiative." Van der Velden pressed home his arguments by stating, "But you don’t even have the right to change the size of the budget". "Things," said Neyts, "are no different in the Netherlands or Belgium: here too parliament cannot impose any changes on the size of the budget as a whole."
Perhaps the two debaters did finally agree about one thing that was said: "Europe is too important to simply be left to heads of state and government leaders."