H
ISTORISKA INSTITUTIONEN
How to set an example
EU social normative power and its influence on Dutch national debates.
Master’s thesis 30 credits Lisanne van der Lelij
Table of contents
Abstract ... 4
Introduction ... 5
Chapter one: Theoretical and methodological foundation ... 12
Concerning the theoretical framework ... 12
Concerning the primary sources ... 16
Chapter two: The construction of EU social normative power ... 22
EU construction and normative development ... 22
Period towards the Lisbon Treaty ... 29
Charter of Fundamental Rights ... 29
Constitution of the European Union ... 31
From a Constitution to a new treaty ... 33
Conclusions ... 35
Chapter three: Dutch debate from Constitution to Lisbon ... 38
Lack of direction and democracy ... 38
Fluctuating ambitions and level of trust ... 40
Civil concern ignored ... 41
EU neglectance ... 43
A treaty of compromises ... 46
The referendum ... 47
The aftermath ... 50
The Constitutional hub ... 52
From Irish setback to implementation ... 55
Conclusions ... 57
Chapter four: The mechanisms of norm diffusion ... 60
Failure of norm diffusion ... 60
Stages of norm diffusion ... 63
Conclusions ... 67
Bibliography ... 69
Primary sources ... 69
Abstract
Introduction
Since the construction of the European Union in the post-World War II period, its
development and its place in the international politics has been unique.1 In 1973 François
Duchêne defined what was the European Community (EC) as having ‘civilian ends and means, and a built-in sense of collective action, which in turn express, however imperfectly, social values of equality, justice and tolerance’ instead of having a desire for military power.2
Duchêne pinpoints some core characteristics of the EU that make it stand out from other international actors. An important part of these characteristics is developed from the EU’s historical context. The post-war environment forced states to abandon their nationalism that had brought Europe in its catastrophic condition and move towards international cooperation. With basing this cooperation on political-legal treaties signed by all members, a foundation was laid to a European structure that placed universal norms and principles at the centre of it.3
The initial intention of a European cooperation was to rebuild Europe’s economy and with it to rebuild Europe physically as it was destroyed after two World Wars. The second intention of this international institution was to guarantee peace in Europe so that the former catastrophes would not ever happen again. These intentions were accomplished through economic and political cooperation in Europe. As the EU developed more through the twentieth century, this unique ‘civilian power’ Duchêne talks about, also developed into a kind of normative power within different areas.4 As Ian Manners puts it ‘the central
component of normative power Europe is that the EU exists as being different to pre-existing political forms, and that this particular difference predisposes it to act in a normative way’.5
What both Duchêne and Manners are trying to tell us, is that the EU relies on civilian means to pursue the spread of specific norms, rather than to pursue geographical expansion or military superiority, which strongly distinguishes the EU from individual states and gives it a normative power.6
This EU normative power is not a new concept, and has been a point of discussion especially within the academic fields of international relations and political science, where Manners and
Dûchene have been an important part of. The discussion is usually about where this power originates, either from the EU’s actions or its design.7 For example in Forsberg’s article EU’s, normative power is acknowledged as an established concept and dissected to see the way it causes effects, the types of normative power there are and what mechanisms are essential to it.8 This articles and many others confirm EU normative power is an established concept that has been explicitly researched through theories from these fields, though seldom framed as a historical concept.9 This can be seen as a lacking in the historic academic field, as normative power has been both a core quality and an important tool for the EU since its construction. Furthermore, EU normative power is not a set term, but a concept that changes over time. That is why in this research EU normative power will be looked at within its historical
context. In this research, it will show that the EU has been in some kind of normative position from its construction and that this position changed through time.
When reading literature on EU’s normative power and on EU history, there are two things that are striking. Firstly, it seemed that the EU had been created out of the named civilian power that caused the EU to occupy a normative position, which is discussed previously. Secondly, it seemed that in the last part of the twentieth century and during the period towards the Lisbon Treaty the EU developed a more social and individual focus when it comes to the goals and measures that they installed.10 The literature concerning this subject can be divided into two parts: a more general history of the EU focused on the political development and the events surrounding this development and specific literature that concerns EU social policy which highlights the historical development of this phenomenon. The more general literature for example concerns Watts’ book that describes the entire EU history up until 2008. The book has the goal to give a comprehensive overview of EU history focusing on EU’s development, institutions, actors, policies and the role of member states.11
This type of literature has a mainly focusses on an international level and does not necessarily elaborate on many national phenomena that are influenced by the EU. Although, this
secondary literature is especially suitable for giving an understandable overview of the many ways the EU has developed. When reading about the last period of the twentieth century and the developments concerning the Lisbon Treaty it is noticeable that the development of social
7 Björkdahl et al, 2015, 3. 8 Forsberg, 2011.
9 Pace, 2007.; Gordon, Pardo, 2015; Scheipers, Sicurelli, 2007.; Manners, 2008.; Sjursen,2006.; Whitman, 2013. 10 Manners, 2002.; Loth, 2015; Watts, 2008.; Dedmand, 2010.; Gilbert, 2011; Teague, 2001; Geyer, 2000.; Daly,
2007.; Lewis, 2006.; Falkner, 1998.
goals and policies are mentioned more regularly. This perspective is confirmed when reading literature on EU social policy. It mentions that EU social policy is difficult to understand as policy making happens between many institutional layers and is hard to achieve with many legal constrains and protectionist member states.12 However, the 1980s, 1990s and the development of the Lisbon Treaty are frequently mentioned as being periods of important social development for the EU. For example, Geyer mentions how ‘EU social policy has gone through a remarkable expansion in the 1980s and 1990s’.13 This body of literature shows the development of the EU’s social policy, but at the same time does not give a structured idea of what exactly includes social policy. Articles write among others about rights on family, labor, gender, minorities and social inclusion, but a specific demarcation of the term is missing.14
As the literature focusing on normative power, does not have a historical perspective and the literature on EU’s social development does not include the concept of normative power, this research wants to combine the two subjects. The combination of findings had caused the interest to research into a possible social normative position of the EU. What has become clear in this thesis is, that during the indicated period, normative power had evolved beyond economic and political means and started being expressed through direct social means. In this period, European institutions explicitly worked towards making fundamental freedoms, human rights and other individually focused social characteristics an integral part of European cooperation. These developments were visible in ideals that were set, initiatives that were taken and the way the EU changed its focus from states to EU citizens. This research wants to put this EU development central as both EU’s normative power and social development have been determined in academic research, but a combination of both has not been investigated. This research want to do so by looking into the concept of social normative power. To make sure there is a clear demarcation of this term, social normative power will be defined as: a normative position that focusses on the individual when looking at who is addressed and within the measures and initiatives that are taken.
One of the initiatives that followed out of the development of social normative power, is the European Constitution. This treaty-based document was a very symbolic way of
anchoring these characteristics. It was drafted in the beginning of the twenty-first century and was meant to replace all previous treaties to make the EU clear and accessible for its citizens. Eventually, the Treaty establishing a Constitution of Europe was rejected because The
12 Daly, 2007, 1, 2.; Teague, 2001, 8. 13 Geyer, 2000, 245.
Netherlands and France voted against its installment through national referendums in 2005. What followed was a rather contradictory development. As the ratification of the
Constitutional Treaty failed, the EU quickly established the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. The Lisbon Treaty was essentially a recycled version of the Constitution Treaty which was stripped of its symbolic constitutionalism, but besides that was left unaltered. The Lisbon Treaty was signed by all member-states only two years after the rejection of the European Constitution.15
The failure of the European Constitution in comparison with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the negative vote with the Dutch and French referendums have been discussed within academic literature as well. The literature includes discussion about how specific properties of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty relate to each other and argumentation for why and how referendums in different member states had the outcomes that they had.16 When looking at the discussion about the two Treaties, constitutionalism and
identity are concepts that are frequently used to analyze the events.17 Normative power on the
contrary, is not used although it has been determined that for an important part this originates in EU treaties. Research into what factors influenced the referendums mostly discuss national debates and the public opinion on the EU as a whole, but do not relate normative power to these discussions.
In this research, the importance of putting EU normative power in a historical context is recognized and is therefore executed. When looking at EU normative power in a historical context, a specific period of its development stands out. During the last two decades of the twentieth century and the period towards the Lisbon Treaty, EU normative power made a striking development to explicitly include social means as well. In this period, another striking development took place. The drafted Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was rejected in The Netherlands and France and was therefore not ratified. However, the document was almost fully reused in the Lisbon Treaty only two years later. Because these two important developments took place in the same period, this research considers the connection between the two. The overlapping aim of this research within this subject is therefore to show how EU normative power has influence on member states. With the further demarcation of this subject, a few choices are made.
Firstly, EU normative power can be expressed in many different areas. It is chosen to focus on social normative power, as this area is what explicitly developed in the indicated period. Additionally, the focus on EU social normative power forms a clear framework for analyzing primary sources related to the subject. Secondly, it is chosen to focus on the Netherlands when looking at the developments concerning the rejection of the European Constitution. This is because the Netherlands forms an interesting case, as it is one of the founding members of the European institution and it is considered as a very pro-European country, but did vote against the European Constitution during a referendum. An additional reason for choosing the Netherlands is because the author has done previous research on and has personal experience with the Dutch environment, which gives a certain expertise on this subject.18
Lastly, the influence of EU social normative power on the Netherlands is researched by looking at national debates that took place within the named period. This is done based on the definition that social normative power represents a moral that strongly influences citizens, as it tries to portray what are norms and values within subjects that effect people in their day to day live. As this subject has resonance with citizens, it is interesting to research how this influenced national debates. Furthermore, the referendum that was held was a political instrument that directly consulted the public opinion. This makes national debates an important tool for mapping the referendum. Considering the aim of this research and the named demarcations, the following research question will be used in this thesis: how did the construction of EU social normative power affect national debates in the Netherlands
surrounding the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty?
Considering the research question, the following structure will be used. In the first chapter a theoretical and methodological foundation is laid for the rest of the thesis. This is done in twofold. First, a theoretical framework is introduced that shows how an international institution is able to diffuse its set norms to member states. This framework will be used to explain how social normative power influenced national debates. It is important to mention that this theoretical framework focusses on the Western world, which is mentioned in the text and can be interpreted as the examples that are used consider Western norms. Since this researched focusses on the EU and the Netherlands, this is not seen as problematic. Second, it will be explained what method is used for the analysis of primary sources in the empirical
chapters. It will be explained how the sources were selected, from what angle the sources are approached and how the research question is connected to the approach.
The second chapter of this thesis consists of a historical analysis of the development of the social normative power of the European Union. This development will be looked at by analyzing treaties and other official documents that carried out this normativity. It is looked at how the ideals, goals and measure became more individualized and how this changed over time. At the same time, secondary literature will be used to give a structured overview of the historical development of the EU’s normative status. This secondary literature is mainly focuses on the political development of the EU and does not put the EU’s social development central in its analysis or mentions EU’ normative position. Generally, the inner workings of the EU are emphasized and striking events are described. Secondary literature is compared to the analysis of the treaties where social normative power is central, to indicate the knowledge cap concerning EU’s social normative power. With this analysis, the following question is answered: how did EU treaties and related legal documents construct a social normative position? In this chapter, there is a focus on the period towards the Lisbon Treaty that will be defined as the period between 1990 and 2009. It becomes clear that in the indicated period, the EU built up its social normative power by including more ideals and measures that influenced individuals and address EU citizens more individually within its foundational Treaties.
Chapter one: Theoretical and methodological foundation
The aim of this chapter is to create openness about how the conclusions of this thesis are reached. This will be done by looking at the theory and method. There are two points in this thesis where it is important to address the theory and method. Firstly, when the results of the analysis of the primary sources are used to draw overarching conclusions. Secondly, with the way the primary sources are approached and analyzed. These two point will therefore be discussed in this chapter, beginning with the construction of a theoretical framework that will be used to analyze how an international organization can influence a national debate. Because the research question relates to how an international organization can influence a member state, this theoretical framework will help to draw structured conclusions out of the analysis of the primary sources. Out of this theory, a method of analyzing the primary sources in this thesis will follow. This part of the chapter looks to explain and argue how the primary sources are selected, how they are analyzed and how the research question is related to the sources. This will give a clear overview of the process of analysis and the choices that were made.
Concerning the theoretical framework
The theory that is used concerns norm diffusion. The mechanism of norms originating of an international organization being internalized by a member state will be considered norm diffusion. This mechanism can emerge in a number of ways. For example, when a norm has already been adopted by existing member states, norm diffusion happens when a different country wants to become a new member of the EU and therefore has to comply with the accession conditions. In that case, a country diffuses international norms as its goal is to become part of the international organization.19 As the Netherlands is already a member of the
EU, norm diffusion works differently. Trying to accomplish norm diffusion with established members is reached through a three-part cycle. Finnemore and Sikkink tell us that norm diffusion is reached through a cycle of norm emergence, norm cascade and internalization. The first stage of norm emergence most often happens on a national level where ‘norm entrepreneurs’ attempt to convince the critical mass of states of a certain norm. These norm entrepreneurs could be individuals or groups that see the necessity of a certain norm and often use a non-governmental platform to convince the critical masses of a state to adopt the norm.
The motives for these actors to encourage norm diffusion can be plenty fold. They could stem from a certain empathy, ideology or altruism.20
With the second stage of norm cascade, it is attempted to reach a certain tipping point for other member states to diffuse a norm. To reach this tipping point, a state actor within the EU makes use of the socialization platforms it offers to try and convince others. These platforms are for example the different legislative components like the European Parliament or maybe just the corridors of the EU’s offices were lobbying takes place.22 This socialization
can consist of different tactics with trying to convince others to diffuse norms. For example,
with giving praise for behavior that conforms to the norm, or ridicule for deviation.23 These tactics could eventually cause a tipping point to be reached where states diffuse a norm. The reason for a state to diffuse a norm can be because the norm fits the identity of the state. For example, when a norm is associated with liberalism and a state that sees itself as liberal would be very likely to reach the tipping point and diffuse the norm.24
Another way for states to reach a tipping point to norm diffusion is through peer pressure. There can be three reasons to admit to peer pressure with the first one being legitimation.
20 Finnemore, Sikkink,1998, 895-901.
21 This table is based on the table in Finnemore, K. Sikkink article, but with some slight changes as not all
components are discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, identity has been added as a motive in stage 2 to emphasize the importance of identity in the explanation of international influence.
22 Quaglia, et al. 2008, 155.; Bauhr, Nasiritousi, 2009, 11. 23 Finnemore, Sikkink,1998, 902.
24 Finnemore, Sikkink,1998, 902.
Table 121 Stages of norm diffusion
Stage 1 Norm emergence Stage 2 Norm cascade Stage 3 Internalization
Actors Norm entrepreneurs
with organizational platforms States, international organizations, networks Law, bureaucracy
Motives Altruism, empathy, ideology Identity, legitimacy, conformity, esteem Conformity Dominant Mechanisms
Persuasion Socialization Habit,
Here, an international organization like the EU functions as the guardian of the international stamp of approval or disapproval. To retain international legitimacy, it can be necessary to diffuse norms. The consequences of the loss of reputation, trust and credibility when
deviating plays a big role here. This legitimacy does not just apply on an international level, but on a national level as well. On a national level, citizens will make judgements whether the international alternative is considered better than what is the national norm. For states to preserve national legitimacy they could feel pressured to diffuse norms according to citizens’ judgement.25 A second response to peer pressure can be conformity. Conformity in this sense is a state’s social proof to show that it diffuses certain norms and with it demonstrates that is belongs in the international environment. The third response to peer pressure can be out of esteem. Member states want to diffuse norms because they want others to think well of them or they want to think well of themselves. This feeling of esteem is very much connected to a state’s idea of its identity. As a state could feel the need to diffuse a norm as it takes pride into staying true to its identity and this norm is associated with a state’s identity.26
The third step in the cycle to norm diffusion, is internalization. At this stage, a norm is widely accepted and is internalized by actors almost automatically.27 A historic example from Europe of a set of norms that have gone through this cycle is women’s rights. Women’s suffrage became a demand for domestic change within a few European countries and has eventually become an international unquestioned norm.28 Norms concerned with women’s rights are now an institutionalized part of the EU and are reflected in international and national bureaucracy and law. The three-part cycle to norm diffusion is depicted in the table 1.
Besides explaining how a member state can be influenced to comply with norms, it is important to understand how norm diffusion could fail and where this failure originates. Bauhr and Nasiritousi tell us that the cause of norm diffusion failure can originate either within a member state or within the EU.29 When norm diffusion failure originates within a member state, this could be because a norm does not resonate with domestic conditions. The culturally and historically shaped norms within a state could be opposing the international
norms that are supposed to be diffused.30 This type of diffusion failure can be described as a new norm conflicting with a state’s identity. This could for example happen if norms that are determined within the EU are progressive norms, but a member state identifies as a
conservative state. This reversed effect of the named motive identity, is also visible within national legitimacy. As national legitimacy is a reason to conform to a norm, it can also be a reason not to conform to a norm. When norms that are determined by an international organization are judged by citizens to be inferior to norms that are already established
nationally, norm diffusion could be rejected. By rejecting international norms because citizens see them as undesirable, the legitimacy of a state’s government will increase.
Norm diffusion failure can on the other hand originate within the international
organization as well. An international organization could be trying to determine norms that in themselves are conflicting, which could encounter resistance with norm accepting. An
example here is the diffusion of norms that concern combatting climate change. At first glance, this particular set of norms reflects a very well established and institutionalized ideal, which would be expected not to encounter much resistance. However, this set of norms could include the obligation to install a carbon emission trading market where the setup of this market promotes fraud and corruption.31 When the EU tries to determine this set of norms, the confliction within them could be an argument for member states not to diffuse these norms. Another failure of norm diffusion that originates within the international organization, is when the organization does not consequently act according the norms that it determines. Member states could refuse to diffuse norms when they feel like the EU consistently does not meet the self-established norms. With failing to meet self-determined norms, the legitimacy of an international organization decreases. An example of this could be when the EU sets up norms that promote a good quality of government. When member states determine that there are leadership issues and there is a lack of administrative direction within the EU, they could see this as a reason to ignore norm diffusion. The different kind of failures within norm diffusion are depicted in table 2.
This set theoretical framework will be used to give structural approach for drawing
overreaching conclusions after the two empirical chapters. The framework is aimed to better understand how an international organization is able to influence national phenomena. In this case, the framework will be used to show how the EU social normative power that is
highlighted in the second chapter relates to the Dutch national debates, which are highlighted in the third chapter. The theory will be able to explain why some arguments have a negative attitude towards EU norms and why other arguments have a positive attitude. Furthermore, the theory will be able to explain what mechanisms lay behind these attitudes, which enables that further reaching conclusions can be drawn about how social norms have influenced national debates. These points will be outlined in the fourth chapter. Out of this theory, the methodology concerning the primary sources will follow. As the theory concerns norm diffusion, the method of analyzing the primary sources has the goal to retract information from the sources that concern EU social norms and the way norms played a part in Dutch national debate.
Concerning the primary sources
The method of analyzing the primary sources of this thesis will be discussed separately relating to chapter two and chapter three. The method will be discussed according to the following points: the way the sources have been selected, the way they will be analyzed in the respective chapters, and how the sources relate to the research question. In chapter two, the question that will be answered is: how did EU treaties and related legal documents construct a social normative position? To answer this question EU legal documents will be analyzed, for example the Rome Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These documents form the established legal order of the EU and are an important part of how the EU is able to convey a
Table 2 Norm diffusion failure
Member state level EU level
Legitimacy Preserving national government legitimacy when citizens judge EU norms negatively.
Failure to meet norms set by the EU itself.
Confliction New norms are conflicting with national identity.
normative position. Especially treaties form the EU’s constitutional foundation and together with the EU’s historical context and its hybrid construction, treaties give the EU a normative character.32 Norms and values are anchored in EU Treaties and through these documents, the set norms can have legal consequences as well. That is why Treaties and other legal
documents strongly related to these treaties are analyzed in the second chapter as to disclose EU social normative power.
An important distinction needs to be made when looking at the EU documents, namely the distinction between social normative power and other types of normative power. The research concerns itself with the development of social normative power, which is defined as a normative position that focusses on the individual when looking at who is addressed and within the measures and initiatives that are taken. So, looking at the level of individuality within a source will be an important way to make a distinction between social norms and other norms. A second important distinction that is made within EU Treaties, is between the introductory part of the document and the legal part of the document. In this introductory part ideals and goals are formulated and in the legal part, binding measures are defined. How these two parts relate to each other can tell a lot about the type of norms the document conveys. A treaty could for example have the ideal to create equality, but this ideal could be solidified through economic measures or social measures. Considering these two distinctions, the EU legal documents are analyzed according to the following three steps.
First, the introductory part of the document is analyzed to see in what way it concerns social norms. This is done by indicating if the ideals and goals are addressed to individuals and have influence on individuals. If they do not meet these individualistic approach, it is indicated what kind of ideal they do concern. This way it will also become clear how social norms differ from other kinds of norms. Second, the legal part of EU Treaties is analyzed. It will be looked at how these measures influence individuals. If these measures do not
influence individuals, it will be examined what these measures do influence. Third, the introductory part of the document is compared to the legal part of the document. Only when the indicated ideals and goals on the one hand and the measures on the other hand, both
address and influence individuals, the document is considered to hold social normative power. Besides the EU Treaties there are a few other primary sources used. These primary sources consider important developments that relate to the EU Treaties. For example, the European Social Charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of
Human Rights. These documents have formed an inspiration to treaty documents or have become a part of treaty at some point. As these documents hold a legal status and contain ideals, goals and measures written with a similar textual structure as the EU Treaties, these documents will be analyzed according to the named stages. Another kind of primary source that is used in this chapter is official documents from European Council meetings or similar legal bodies that played an important role in the creation of a EU Treaty. These documents concern the Laeken Declaration and the conclusions from the Council meeting of Cologne in 1999. These documents have a different textual structure as they describe decisions that are made during these meetings. These documents will be analyzed by looking at decisions that deal with the development of EU Treaties. Together these documents will concern the part of the research question that explains the construction of EU social normative power.
In the third chapter the sources that are selected are articles from Dutch newspapers and researches into the public opinion in the period towards the Dutch referendum concerning the European constitution. The selection of the public opinion documents was through the online database of the Dutch government, where parliamentary documents between 1814 and the present day are available.33 The researches were commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and were executed by four different private research bureaus in the period between January 2005 up to the day before the referendum which was held June 1st 2005. The researches all vary slightly in their method, the period of execution or the specific objective. So, in total the researches give a broad view on the public opinion and arguments regarding the Dutch referendum on the European Constitution.
Besides these research documents, the second set of primary resources that are used are Dutch newspaper articles. The sources were selected through the online newspaper database Nexis Uni.34 The database is made by a private IT company Lexis Nexis and
contains articles from national and local newspaper starting from thirty years ago. The two set of search terms that were used in this database are ‘Europese grondwet’ (European
Constitution) and ‘Lissabon verdrag’ (Lisbon Treaty). The database offers different options for filtering results, and because the two search terms give a large number of hits, these filter options are used to make a structured and manageable selection.
The first filter option is that of selecting newspaper the articles originate from. The four largest national newspapers in the database were selected. These newspapers are: NRC Handelsblad, De Telegraaf, De Volkskrant and Trouw.35 NRC Handelsblad, De Volkskrant and Trouw are generally seen as quality newspaper, whereas De Telegraaf is seen as a more popular newspaper.36 These newspaper all have retained a kind of identity from their origin, but these traditional social divisions between newspapers have faded strongly and are no longer greatly visible.37 Although the deviation is not very visible anymore, they still have some characteristics. Trouw is seen as a philosophical and open-minded newspaper with a protestant origin, De Volkskrant as a progressive left-wing newspaper with a catholic origin, NRC Handelsblad as a more liberal and intellectual newspaper and De Telegraaf as
nonreligious and more sensational.38 The selected newspapers cover a large demographic and therefore fit the research very well as it wants to give a broad overview of Dutch national debate.
The database has a second filter option for specifying the period of publication. With this tool, it is possible to choose any period in time that the articles are published. With this tool, the articles will be divided in separate periods of six months starting with the period January 1st 2001 until May 31st 2001 and ending with the period June 1st 2009 until December 31st 2009. This starting point is when the first steps were taken towards the construction of a new treaty and the ending period is when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified. With creating separate blocks of half years to choose articles from, the arbitrariness with selecting articles will be lowered. With deviation onto different periods it is possible to incorporate the search term ‘Lissabon verdrag’ at a specific point. This search term will be used alongside the search term ‘Europese grondwet’ starting with the period Janury 1st 2007 until May 31st 2007, as in
this period the process of creating a the new Lisbon Treaty started.39 For each half a year, four articles will be chosen. These four articles will be from the four different named newspapers, unless this is not possible when for a specific newspaper there are no hits found through the filter options. Furthermore, not more than two of these articles should have been published within four weeks of each other to ensure a broader overview of the half year period.
To further lower the arbitrariness these four articles will be chosen based on length of the article and the type of article. With the length of the articles, it means that the longer
35 Bakker, 2018
36 Hijmans, Pleijter, Wester, 2003, 158. 37 Ybema, 2003, 2.
articles will be selected as these articles tend to go into more detail about the subject. With the type of article, it means that columns, editorials, letters to the editor and op-eds will be
avoided, as they have a lesser ability to portray a national debate, but often portray a more individualistic opinion. When all these filter options have been executed and the articles are being selected, the articles will briefly be scanned to see if they actually relate to the thesis subject as sometimes unrelated articles still slip through all the set-up filters. For example, an article about the French elections that also refers to how the candidates handle the subject of European development is not very useful as a source within this thesis. When such an article is noted, it will be removed from the selection.
The analysis of the articles will be done in two steps. First, the selected articles will be scanned for discussion surrounding EU Treaties. This is done because besides the EU
Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, discussion surrounding the Nice Treaty and its
predecessors are also of interest when determining the influence of social normative power. These discussions will be outlined in the chapter. Second, it will be measured what the influence is of individualization and norms within these discussions. The actual goal is to measure the influence of social normative power on the discussions, however this concept is not named explicitly with the news articles, but is mostly buried within a nuanced context. That is why it is necessary to look for related signals of social normative power within the analyzed discussion. Social normative power is defined within this thesis as a normative position that focusses on the individual when looking at who is addressed and within the measures and initiatives that are taken. When having this definition as point of departure, norms and individualization can be used as tools to measure the influence of the whole concept.
It must be realized however, that norms and individualization as measurement tools can be described in other words within an article. The phrasing for individualization can for example be: the influence of the EU on people’s day to day life or the people’s growing fear. Both examples signify a more individualized influence, but are described very different. When it is described how the EU has an enlarged influence on daily life, it is interpreted as
individualization because it means individuals notice a growing presence of EU goals and measures. Same goes for describing people’s growing fear, here individuals have a frightening reaction to the EU as influences them more personally. To make a structural distinction the following points will be highlighted in the chapter in relation to
can be described in articles is: the capacity to influence EU decision making or EU’s position. These examples say something about what the normative position is of the EU. The capacity to influence decision making refers to the democratic norms of the EU and EU’s position is a more general reference to a normative position. The following points will be highlighted in the chapter in relation to norms: arguments about what structure the EU should have or what it should represent, normative statements on what has or has not been just action. By
highlighting these points, it will be uncovered what discussion surrounded the events of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty and to what extend these arguments included reference to norms and individualization and with it to social normative power. This analysis relates to the research question as it looks at explicating Dutch national debate and
Chapter two: The construction of EU social normative power
The European Union was constructed out of a longing and determination towards stability and peace after the two world wars left Europe in destruction. Only through a united Europe could states have the strength to rebuild the continent and ensure war would not reappear.40 During
the second half of the twentieth century, it became clear that it was not Germany, but the USSR that was posing the biggest threat to Western Europe in the period after World War II. A unity in Western Europe might enable a feeling of security through the developing tension of the Cold War. A ‘European Idea’ developed an idealistic notion of a strong, prosperous and most importantly, peaceful Europe. These sentiments were the beginning of the development of the modern European Union. Furthermore, this historical context and Europe’s ideals of peace and liberty were the defining origins of the EU’s normative position.41
This chapter will further dissect how the EU’s normative power was developed and specifically in regard to the development of social normative power. As has been discussed in the introduction, current literature on EU development strongly focusses on EU’s political development and the events that surrounded these developments. Furthermore, this literature looks at the development of the EU’s social policy. The development of social measures is discussed within both types of literature, but is not linked to a specific normative position. The analysis in this chapter of EU Treaties, will indicate that explicit social normative power is established around the turn of the twenty-first century. This will be done by answering the following question: how did EU treaties and related legal documents construct a social
normative position? To show the development of EU’s normative power, a brief history of the EU before social normative power will be included, after which the chapter will focus on the timeframe between 1990 and 2009.
EU construction and normative development
In the years after 1945, it was statesmen who embraced a European idea and took initial bold steps towards concrete cooperation. The areas where they first attempted to develop
cooperation, were in Europe’s military, politics and economy.42 The Council of Europe and NATO were created in 1949, the European Defence Community and the European Political Community both in 1954 were these first steps towards political and military union. A prior
treaty by the Council of Europe that would become important within the European
cooperation, was the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) which was inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations and came into force in 1953. The Convention obligated states to respect and promote fundamental rights and installed the European Court of Human Rights.43
Although these were more idealistic forms of cooperation, the more practical and achievable goal to merge the economic market for coal and steel supplies was achieved in the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1951. In this treaty France, Germany, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Coal and steel were not just a way to bind economic markets, but were also symbolic materials for war. The materials had proven to provide military capacity and motive for German and French territorial invasion.44 With combining their markets on a supranational
level, it could be a strong tool in preventing war. Within the treaty, the normative goals of peace, restoration of the standard of living and greater cooperation were set. These goals were expressed in economic measures on the one hand, and on the other hand in political
collaboration with the construction of European political bodies like the High Authority and the Common Assembly.45 The contents of the treaty in this case match the description in secondary literature, as the treaty seemed very focused on norms and measures relating to guaranteeing peace and working together on an economic level. In the literature on social policy for example, Collins names that in the Paris Treaty ‘social policy consisted primarily of methods of compensation for economic change affecting workers’ jobs in which the impact of the introduction of the common market was originally the major factor […]’. It seemed that the economic measures were the central component of the treaty, which becomes even more clear when Collins adds that ‘[the social policy] was largely a defensive system quietening the fears of the timorous and enabling them to accept the new arrangements and to be willing to work with them.’46 In Gilbert’s overview of EU history, he mentions that the ECSC had an ‘economic philosophy’, which was also a way to ‘substitute for age old rivalries […]’.47
The ECSC proved to be very successful, so the six countries looked for ways to extend their cooperation. The countries wanted to expand their common market to all manufactured
43 Watts, 2008, 11.; Council of Europe, 1950, European Convention on Humans Rights, 5. 44 Dedmand, 2010, 51.; Loth, 2015, 30, 32.
45 Paris Treaty, 1951.
goods and to materials for atomic materials providing equal access to stocks of uranium.48 These wishes were anchored in the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and with it the European Atomic Energy Community (Eurotom) and the European Economic Community (EEC) were created. The treaty also further developed its political bodies and established three institutions that would develop into the basis for the European legislative process: the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council.49 When looking at the original treaty, it is remarkable that the treaty’s normative focus was still very economical. Even the social policy within the treaty concerned ‘improved working conditions and improved standard of living for workers’ which indicated that even within social policy, economic elements are central.50
The treaty does go into more detail about what its goals are beyond economic development. As can be read in Article 2 of the treaty, the treaty assigns itself tasks that reach beyond an economic merge and more towards social development and closer political cooperation:
“The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.”51
The developments in and the willingness for internationalism and interdependency were becoming increasingly visible in the goals of the Rome Treaty, but it did not yet have any direct social measures and so did not hold any social normative power. This corresponds with the perspective in secondary literature that focusses on the enlargement of economic and politic cooperation and confirms the setting of further reaching goals. Watts, for example emphasizes that the EEC had set itself a broader set of tasks, but could also be considered a continuation of the ECSC.52 When looking at social policy literature, Hoskyns writes that is had ‘a strong element of functional policy to encourage mobility of labour’ and with it confirms that even the social policy was labor focused.53 The development of
interdependency continued when in 1965 a Fusion Treaty was signed which merged the until
48 Dedmand, 2010, 82.
49 Paris Treaty, 1951.; Watts, 2008, 76. 50 Paris Treaty, 1951, 42.
51 Rome Treaty, 1957. 52 Watts, 2008, 19.
then independent organizations of the ECSC, EEC and Euratom into the European
Communities (EC). Although the organizations remained working separately, they fell under the same overarching international structure.
Around this time, the success of the EC did not go unnoticed which resulted in other countries wanting to join. In the 1980’s the amount of countries that were a member of the EC grew to a total of twelve, with the United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece joining. Although more countries joined the EC, the 1970’s and 1980’s were characterized by stagnation in further European union. There is however one interesting document that was constructed during this time. During a meeting of the European Council in 1973, a
Declaration of the European Identity was created. This document did not hold any treaty-like properties, but did officially state what was considered a European identity.54 Principles that
were part of this identity were ‘representative democracy, the rule of law, social justice [...] and respect for human rights’.55 These socially characterized norms were explicitly stated for
the first time in this document, but did not have any legal consequences.56 The document can
therefore not be seen as holding any social normative power.
The single market and the progressive goals that were set in the Rome Treaty, were stagnating and the EC was looking for some much-needed revision to fulfill these goals.57 In the Single European Act (SEA), that was made active in 1987, a single European market was reached by overcoming technical and physical barriers through legislative measures.58 The new President of the European Commission who was behind this revision was Jacques Delors, who was president between 1985 and 1994. With his presidency, the Commission began to develop policies that were designed to bring union beyond what had been achieved since the beginning of EC, among its goals was the creation of a monetary union and a stronger political union.59
An impactful event during Delors’ presidency was the unification of East and West-Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Two halves of West-Germany with very different economic and political structures merged and continued as one country. This meant that without another country becoming a member of the EC there was an enlargement of the
54 Loth, 2015, 211, 212.
55 Declaration on European Identity, 1973. 56 Manners, 2002, 241.
57 Watts, 2008, 34.; McAllister, 2009, 83, 107. 58 Watts, 2008, 35.
organization.60 Not long after the unification the Maastricht meetings commenced where Germany attended as a unified country. The meetings in 1991 concerned the topics of monetary union and stronger political union pushed forward by Delors. The treaty set the definite date for the achievement of the economic and monetary union for 1999. The stronger political union of Europe was achieved by the creation of the European Union (EU) under three pillars. The first one was the new European Community which was a development of the already existing institutions under the EC (which would come to include the path to economic and monetary union). The other two pillars were based on stronger political cooperation and installed new institutions. For the second pillar this concerned a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The third pillar concerned what was later known as the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters and focused on immigration control, drug trafficking and terrorism.61
These measures and organizational changes mainly influenced national structures and governments. However, when looking at the Maastricht Treaty, it also included ideals and measures that influenced individual citizens. The treaty anchored parts of the Declaration on European identity by stating the attachment of the member states to the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and rule of law. A second ideal that was described was the establishment of a European citizenship and was followed by the measure of ensuring this European citizenship.62 The citizenship was provided to every
individual that held citizenship in a member state. This citizenship meant that now individuals were legally fixed and rights and duties were directly applicable on these individuals. This development was a very important step in the establishment of social normative power, as it ensured that on a bureaucratic level it was possible to express that these norms influenced individuals. This individuality is for example visible in the way ideals are described. Whereas in the Rome Treaty it states that it wants to ‘ensure the economic and social progress of their countries’, the Maastricht Treaty states that it wants to, ‘promote economic and social
progress for their peoples’. This shows how the Maastricht Treaty gets a more individual and citizen based direction.63 The principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and rule of law therefore obtained a personal dimension as well, but this was not yet expressed in direct measures. When analyzing the Maastricht Treaty it can
60 Watts, 2008, 38. 61 D Watts, 2008, 42-43. 62 Maastricht Treaty, 1991.
therefore be said that it was the first document to hold a certain social normative power caused by the named norms and measures that ensured EU citizenship. It also was an important incentive to develop social normative power further. These findings deviate from secondary literature as it mostly focusses on the new pillar construction and the events surrounding the establishment of the treaty. It does not see the establishment of EU citizenship as an important step for EU’s growing social development and EU’ normative position is not mentioned. This can be seen in Loth’s book, where he does not mention the new citizenship, and instead focusses on the actions of member states or a specific
representative surrounding the treaty.64 Even in literature, focusing on social policy, the importance of EU citizenship is not mentioned.65
Delors’ presidency came to an end in 1994, but the reach beyond economic development continued. First, Sweden, Finland and Austria joined the EU in 1995, with around twenty other countries queuing to join as well.66 Second, Delors' goal of a united
currency was reached in 1999 when eleven member states participated in the Eurozone with their previous currency disappearing in 2002. Third, the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 saw a revision of the Maastricht Treaty towards more social measures. When reading the treaty, it shows to hold strong measures against discrimination on grounds of religion, gender, race, age and sexual orientation that were included in a treaty for the first time. Furthermore, the European Council obtained the power to act against these types of discrimination.67
Noteworthy is that the European Charter got attached to the EU’s treaty. This Social Charter was an official EU document that stated international standards for social rights and
mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of them. The document was already
constructed in 1961, but was only now anchored in the Amsterdam Treaty. In this document, the standard of combating discrimination is again underlined (but here it excludes
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation). Furthermore, it includes standards of the rights of workers and the rights of children, youngsters and women in this respect. The establishment of social security and the access to health care are also included with disabled persons being explicitly named.68 It shows that social norms got more extensive and at the same time measures were taken so that the European Commission could intervene when necessary. The combination of increasing social norms and additional measure to make sure
64 Loth, 2015, 310-335.
65 Daly, 2007.; Lewis, 2006.; Geyer, 2000. 66 D Watts, 2008, 52.
these norms were being complied, meant that the EU’s social normative power grew further. This analysis again differs from the secondary literature where there is a focus on the failure of political development. Loth, Watts and Gilbert mostly focus on how the Amsterdam Treaty failed to reform EU politics with the prospect of further enlargement.69 Literature on the EU’s social policy, does confirm that the Amsterdam Treaty broadened this policy, but does not associate this broadened policy with a normative position or emphasize the individualization of these norms.70 Therefore, the analysis brings a new insight concerning EU’s development and shows how social normative power has been an important part of it.
In the year 2000, the EU was preparing itself for another enlargement of the Union. Ten states were awaiting their admission, with among them many former USSR countries. The EU agreed that its then current state would not suffice if another ten states would join. So, with the Nice Treaty the EU prepared itself for the biggest enlargement yet. The main changes to be executed concerned the shape and size of the legislative organs of the EU and how within them voting would take place. Later in 2004, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia entered the EU. 71 Besides
this enlargement the treaty included a declaration on the future of the European Union. As the question that remained whether the EU would still be manageable after such an enlargement, the declaration saw it was necessary to look at how the EU should develop further.72 It stated that some topics within the subject should be discussed and resolved through initiatives drawn up by the European Council in its upcoming meetings in Göteborg and Laeken, June and December of 2001 respectively. These topics were the relationship between the EU and its member states, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a simplification of the treaties and the role of national parliaments. The treaty fixed the year 2004 where these topics would be discussed during an intergovernmental conference (IGC) and would eventually result in adequate changes to the treaty.73 With an established date and a debate that was preset, the declaration that was added to the Nice Treaty became an important catalyst for the
construction of the European Constitution. Besides preparation for the upcoming enlargement, the analysis of the Nice Treaty shows that it did not involve any increasing social norms or measures.74
69 Loth, 2015, 352.; Watts, 2008, 53.; Gilbert, 2011, 169, 170. 70 Lewis, 2006, 421.; Geyer, 2000, 253.
71 Watts, 2008, 53-54. 72 Voss, Bailleul, 2002, 15.
Period towards the Lisbon Treaty
Two important developments concerning the EU’s social normative power occurred leading up to the Lisbon Treaty. One of them was drafting the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). This document would prove to become enormously important for the legal enforcement of social rights, especially through the Court of Justice of the EU.75 The charter became a core value of the EU as it was integrated into the Lisbon Treaty, and it came into force in 2009.76 A second important development concerning the EU’s social influence was the drafting of the constitution of the EU. This treaty emerged out of a discussion about what the future of the European Union should look like. This discussion put forth some key issues that were wished to be resolved through a constitution.77
Charter of Fundamental Rights
A regularly returning event within the European Council was its meetings that were held four times a year. These meetings were an important tool for the council to make decisions, adopt guidelines, review progress and call for new policy initiatives.78 One of those Council
meetings was held in Cologne in 1999. This meeting considered issues that were exposed after the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. During the meeting, the Council considered that the then present stage of development of the EU asked for a consolidation of all fundamental rights that were applicable on the Union’s level.79 The document was supposed to make fundamental rights clearer by merging and systematizing sources of inspiration from a national and international level into a single document.80 These documents were, for example, the ECHR, the Social Charter and constitutional traditions of member states. The Council proclaimed that ‘protection of fundamental rights is a founding principle of the Union and an indispensable prerequisite for her legitimacy’. They saw that in order to uphold this proclamation, it was necessary to make the ‘overriding importance and relevance’ of these rights more visible to the Union’s citizens.81
A body of different legislative representatives was formed to construct the
75 Búrca, 2013. 76 Lenaerts, 2012, 375. 77 Laeken Decleration, 2001, 1. 78 Johansson, Tallberg, 2010, 215. 79 European Council, 1999. 80 Lenaerts, 2012, 375.
CFR. The body was renamed the European Convention and completed a draft of the charter in less than a year.82 The preamble of the draft starts by directly addressing individuals in the EU by saying: ‘The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values.’. It continued by stating that the EU ‘places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.’.83 The way the document addresses
EU citizens was very different from the ECHR, where the CFR had drawn inspiration from. The ECHR addressed states and governments to consider these rights and noted that ‘the governments of European countries [..] are like-minded and have common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedoms and rule of law’ instead of its citizens having these attributes.84 The Social Charter of 1961 also had a more state-centered approach as it included the same quoted description as the ECHR.85 When looking at the contents of the CFR, it
becomes clear that the aim of making EU rights more visible translated into these rights being addressed to individuals and expressed in such a way.
Besides the personal approach of the charter, the rights expressed in the documents were much more extensive than previous official documents that expressed fundamental and human rights. To give a basic comparison of the extension of rights between the CFR
opposite to the Social Charter and the ECHR: the CFR included 54 articles where rights were stated, while the first version of the ECHR and the Social Charter together had 36 articles were these rights and standards were described. Besides, the CFR included more modern rights like the right to good administration, customer protection, environmental protection and protection of personal data. With these developments, the CFR included a more extensive and modernized set of rights that targeted the individual. The document formed an explicit display of the development towards providing more individual rights addressed to individual EU citizens. The CFR can be seen as the outcome of an accumulation of smaller steps towards a more social focus.86 This was also an important demonstration of the development of the social normative position of the European Union.
The legal status of the text after its construction proved to be a hurdle. The CFR did not get included in the Nice Treaty, but during the affiliated summit the European Parliament, Commission and Council did proclaim it as accepted. This gave the document an undefined
82 Menéndez, 2002, 471.
83 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000, Preamble. 84 European Convention of Human Rights, 1950, 5.
position as a political declaration to which no real consequences were attached.87 It was later decided that the CFR would be added to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which will be discussed below. The eventual legal status of the CFR came with the
ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.88
Constitution of the European Union
Just like the CFR, the Constitution of the European Union can be traced back to a Council meeting. As previously mentioned, the two Council meetings of June and December 2001 were assigned the task of coming up with initiatives for topics that were left unresolved after the Nice Treaty.89 As the Göteborg summit in June did not lead to any sustainable results, it was the Laeken Council meeting in December 2001 that had to create initiatives.90 It was not the intention to decide on definitive answers but to stimulate the debate and steer it in a concrete direction.91 During the lead up to the Council meeting it soon became clear that the
four issues raised in the Nice Treaty could not be isolated and answered separately and so the declaration that was supposed to be formed should broaden the scope of these issues.92
The tasks of the Laeken Council meeting were handled with the creation of the Laeken Declaration. This document concluded that the EU needed to become more democratic, transparent and more efficient. It also stated that the future design of the EU had to resolve how to bring the EU closer to citizens, how to organize politically in an enlarged Union, and how it could remain a stable factor in a multipolar world.93 The declaration saw that a European Constitution would be able to resolve many of these challenges. The constitution would bring all previous treaties into one document and get rid of the complexity of the multiple previous treaties. The main benefit of this was that it would make the foundational structure of the EU simpler, and with it more transparent and accessible. However, the prospect of creating one Constitutional Treaty out of multiple seemed like a complicated task that again raised more questions. Therefore, the Laeken Declaration created the Convention on the Future of Europe. This body of representatives from all legislative parts of the EU was to draw up a European Constitution that would consider the various issues. The final
document would then form the starting point during the set IGC in 2004, when a new treaty should be created.94
The Laeken Declaration provided momentum for the Convention on the Future of Europe. There were two important decisions made for the working of the Convention. One of these decisions was that the Convention would work as if the results of the deliberations would be legally binding, to make sure the result would be very clear instead of vague values and principles. A second decision was that the result would not be through voting, but through consensus as countries were on equal footing during the Convention and so majority voting could mean a minority of the European population.95 Furthermore, the Convention worked through a three-stage method, a listening, examination and proposal stage. Although it was already proposed within the Laeken Declaration to create a European Constitution it was through these three stages, the decision was made to create such a document.96 This decision
was made as it was the perspective of the Convention to create a foundational treaty that encompassed all former ones, instead of making another revision. In this regard, a constitution document seemed like a logical choice.97
The process of creating one treaty out of many caused contentious issues that had to be resolved by the Convention. One of the most difficult issues concerned the institutions and the division of power within the EU. Subjects within this discussion included methods for
choosing a Commission President, the Council’s formation and the Parliament’s role in the legislative process.98 In the process, it became clear that the three-staged method that was used for other issues like the inclusion of the CFR or EU’s legal personality could not be used for making decisions on the EU’s legislative institutions. After a draft Constitution was made in the autumn of 2002, the discussions about the EU institutions were held through plenary sessions and through consulting meetings of different groups of representatives with the Convention’s presidency and secretariat.As these discussions were held, a deadline for a final version of the draft was set for the European Council meeting in June 2003, so during this IGC, decisions could be made for a legally binding treaty. 99
After the final draft was delivered, it took until the Brussel Council meeting in June 2004 for member states to secure agreement on the Constitutional Treaty.100 Some essential
features of this final version were: the replacement of a six-monthly rotating Council President with an elected President for thirty months, incorporation of the total CFR document, removal of veto in some areas and fairer distribution of votes in the Council. Besides these changed features, the document mainly encompassed what the previous treaties already established. Even with some changes in the EU’s institutions, the existing structure remained essentially intact and there was no major expansion of EU competences or great progressive strides. Therefore, the document did not mean a considerable enlargement of social normative power. It did however, anchor the CFR in a treaty for the first time which can very much be considered as an enlargement of social normative power as it declared social norms that are addressed individually and hold legal consequences. Furthermore, the ideal of bringing the EU closer to its citizens that was behind the constitution’s creation was very much in line with the development of social normative power. It might not hold direct social normative power because it does not include binding measures, but the desired consequence of this ideal is that the EU would be more visible in people’s daily life. This might still be considered as a measure. Although, as this is not expressed explicitly in the treaty it should not be considered as an enlargement of EU’s social normative power.
The treaty was also given a strong constitutional character, not just with explicitly naming it a constitution, but also because of its clear structure like a national constitution and the anchored symbols that represent the EU, including an anthem, a motto and a Europe Day.101 After the agreement was reached in Brussels, the document was signed by the member states, and the ratification process could start. As the document concerned a constitution, each member state had to ratify it in accordance with the constitutional requirements or individually chosen legitimization process of each member state.102
From a Constitution to a new treaty
In the Netherlands, a bill became law in 2003, where it was determined that the ratification of the European Constitution would take place through a first national referendum. The
Members of Parliament who initiated the bill felt like the constitutional character of the treaty that was being drafted, required clear legitimization. They wanted to involve citizens directly through an advisory referendum. The government’s advisory body saw that the new EU Constitutional Treaty, to a certain extent, was equal to a reform of the Dutch constitution and
