Rutte IV’s higher European ambitions are not realistic. The civil service currently does not have sufficient knowledge and manpower in house for this. IOB, the independent evaluation service of Foreign Affairs, draws this conclusion after interviews with more than 160 civil servants.
In the report published on Tuesday is warned that the Dutch wish to play a greater role in the EU after Brexit itself can only be achieved with additional investment. The workload is already so high that there is hardly any room for reflection. Informing the House of Representatives and answering parliamentary questions puts “a lot of pressure on civil servants”. As a result, important matters such as strategy formation are also ‘compromised’. The House will hold a round table discussion on the report on Wednesday, followed by a debate later this month.
Also read: The wind has turned in The Hague: Rutte IV wants to play ‘a pioneering role’ in the EU
In recent years, the Netherlands has often sounded frugal and defensive in EU discussions, for example about financial solidarity. The coalition agreement states, especially at the request of D66, that the Netherlands wants to play ‘a pioneering role’ in the EU by thinking more actively about defence, climate and digitalisation. According to the IOB researchers, the national government does not have the energy for this at the moment. The report does not say how many additional people are needed.
Current affairs dominate too much
According to IOB, everyone says that Europe is important, but “there is a lack of a fully elaborated government strategy that makes clear what the Dutch interests are”. IOB argues for more strategic discussions ‘at a high official level, apart from current events’. This allows for an ‘efficiency move’, because then a greater distinction can be made between important and less important files. At the moment, every new proposal coming out of Brussels is being assessed at the request of the parliament. Even if it affects the Netherlands less, there will be a ‘BNC file’ (Assessment of New Commission Proposals). In the period studied (2016-2020), this yielded an average of 104 fiches per year.
IOB is mainly positive about the way in which Dutch EU positions are officially established: other ministries, local authorities, civil society organizations and parliament are closely involved in this. The provision of information, including that to the House of Representatives, has ‘a high degree of timeliness’. The diplomats and officials actively engaged in EU policy are ‘a well-oiled machine’. In many other EU countries this is ‘less flexible, with the result that there is not always a timely national position, let alone that this is achieved in an inclusive manner’.
Answering the many parliamentary questions puts a lot of pressure on civil servants
There is a ‘reverse side’ to this: the Dutch model is not only labour-intensive, but can also lead to ‘flattened positions’, which can ‘truncate’ ministers and diplomats during negotiations in European meeting rooms. Unlike the German Chancellor or the French President, the Dutch Prime Minister himself has few formal steering powers, while ‘EU reality’ often demands this. In the European Council, the body of government leaders, sometimes decisions have to be made at the moment itself, while this is at odds with how Dutch democracy is organised.
A ‘radical reassessment’ of the Dutch approach is not necessary. But the administrative capacity has not grown sufficiently in line with developments in the world and in the EU, where decisions have become more complex and political and are also taken on more and more subjects. For example, due to the corona crisis, ‘Brussels’ is also more concerned with public health, traditionally mainly national domain.
Knowledge and experience ‘leaks away’
Due to the rapid decision-making in Brussels, Dutch policy is forced to rely heavily on informal contacts: by switching quickly between people who know each other, the Netherlands manages to compete well in the EU negotiating game. According to IOB, this also makes the policy vulnerable: if a civil servant with a good EU network leaves, experience immediately leaks away. IOB is critical of the mandatory ‘rotation schedules’ for civil servants. As a result, even senior officials ‘do not always have sufficient knowledge and experience of European institutions and processes’.
IOB refers to the many parliamentary groups. It is difficult for small parties to control EU policy. Besides the fact that the House itself would benefit from more support, according to the report, the government can do more to provide better insight into the European field of influence. It still says too often: the positions of other EU countries are confidential. But according to IOB, there are enough public sources to do so. The discussions in the European Parliament also contain important information and deserve more attention, say the researchers. Although this EU institution has become more powerful, there is little to be found about it in letters to the House.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC on the morning of February 2, 2022
#European #cabinet #ambitions #feasible #due #lack #knowledge #manpower