Toespraak Schulz in de Tweede Kamer (en)

Thank you for your invitation to the Tweede Kamer. It is a great honour and pleasure to be with you here today. The last five crisis years have taken a heavy toll on Europe. Trust has been lost. Unity has been lost. There is now a new disconnect between "Brussels" and many citizens. A Brussels of "Eurocrats", that is seen as wasteful and not delivering. New divisions have opened. Between the South and the North. Between creditors and debtors. Between Eurozone-members and non-Eurozone members.

In today's Europe everybody has the feeling they are on the losing side. This feeling of being on the loser's side is a breeding ground for resentments. Resentments we thought we had overcome a long-time ago. Populists exploit this feeling. They suggest that retreating behind national borders is doable. That disconnecting from the world is feasible. They claim that simple answers like "leaving the Euro" or "shutting down the borders" provide answers to highly complex problems in a globalized world. They campaign against "Brussels".

A Brussels they portray as an anonymous monster that is taking control of peoples' lives. We democrats are called upon to take this feeling very seriously and engage with it. We are called upon to win back the trust of people.

Ladies and gentlemen,

You know I'm a believer in Europe. But I also criticise the EU. A lot. Being pro-Europeans does not mean being blind to the EU’s faults. As pro-Europeans we have a duty to be critical. We have to listen to those who have the feeling that something is wrong with the EU. We have a duty to make the EU better. And we can do better.

So, what's wrong with the EU? I always say: there are two schools of thought in the European Commission. One will not rest until they have privatised the last village cemetery. And the other won’t stop until they have implemented an EU-directive for funerals. Yes. I’m exaggerating. But you know exactly what I am talking about. You have this great expression to describe a person: " bemoeizucht". That really hits the nail on the head. The Commission sometimes meddles in too many things that are not its business. It produces a burden of rules and regulations that bear down on companies and peoples.

We have 28 Commissioners, whose portfolios all too often overlap and collide. And each one of these 28 Commissioners wants their moment of glory. So they produce more directives and regulations. Thousands more pages of legislation. In a way that is increasingly difficult to coordinate efficiently. This has to stop! If we want to change the way the Union is run, the next President of the Commission must lead by example - and start with the Commission. He may not be able to reduce the number of Commissioners as foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty. Because member states block this reform. But he or she can decide to reduce the number of departments, cut the 33 Commission departments and concentrate on priorities.

So, what else can be done to fix the EU? The repatriation of powers as advocated by Prime Minister Cameron is definitely not the answer. Because the repatriation of powers means treaty change. And treaty change means opening Pandora’s box. We really have more important things to do. There is no need to create new institutions and instruments; no need for treaty change to fix what’s wrong with the EU. The solution is as simple as this:

The next Commission stops over-stepping its powers.

The next Commission President puts everything on hold.

And evaluate what actually needs to be done by the EU and what should be left to member states.

It's about finding a more rational division of labour between the member states and the EU.

One that builds on the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.

Indeed, the subsidiarity principle already lays out simple ground rules:

What can be done better locally must be done locally.

What can be done better regionally is done regionally.

What can be done better nationally is done nationally.

Let's respect these rules! Your government has made a contribution to this debate with its "Dutch list of points of action". And I have to say, I really appreciate your matter-of-fact, down-to-earth approach. You don't disengage from the European Union, you engage with the European Union - with the goal to make the EU better from within. As a founding member the Netherlands have always been one of the most pro-European countries:

• - 

  A proud trading nation.

• - 

  Open to the world.

• - 

  Well aware of economic interdependences.

• - 

  Well attuned to the fact that everyone benefits from a strong Europe.

50 years ago already, it was a Dutch company - Van Gend en Loos - that made history by fighting for its right to trade across borders in the internal market. Today we need to remember the logic of that seminal judgment of the Court of Justice: our Union is unlike anything which came before; it is a new order which gives rights directly to its citizens and businesses.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have followed with great interest recent Dutch proposals to enhance the role of national parliaments in the EU. Together as national and European parliamentarians we have to fight to hold decision-makers accountable. We are called upon to fight the creeping de-parliamentarisation of Europe!

The European Parliament is leading the way. We have set up our own impact assessment facility to properly assess changes made also during the legislative procedure. I'm looking forward to more Dutch contributions to the reform process; a process which must result as Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans recently wrote in an op-ed for the Financial Times: "(...) more Europe in some areas, and less in others." And indeed, subsidiarity and European added value are two sides of the same coin.

Yes, the EU should only act when there is added value. Where nation-states act on their own, they stand no chance of succeeding. Because in our globalised world some problems transcend borders or have become too complex for one nation to deal with alone. Where there is added value the EU should act. And we must provide the EU with the resources and instruments needed to deliver. There is plenty to do and plenty to solve:

• - 

  leading Europe out of the crisis

• - 

  completing the single market

• - 

  migration and asylum

• - 

  energy and climate change

• - 

  fighting international terrorism and organized crime

• - 

  combatting tax fraud and tax evasion

It’s the big problems where the EU brings added value to its citizens. That’s what people want us to do.

They don’t want the EU to regulate olive oil jugs in restaurants or regulate dyke constructions. And for sure, they do not want us to embark on the escapist road of treaty change that would only distract us from solving the real problems. And we still have a lot of problems at our hands. The two most urgent ones are in my eyes: getting Europe back to work and setting up the banking union.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are still struggling to come out of the worst economic crisis of our life-times. People are hit hard by the crisis. In Europe, 26 million people don't have job. 6 million young people are out of work. It's a scandal that the young generation is paying with their life chances for a crisis they have not caused - they are in danger of becoming a lost generation. Countless family companies and young start-ups can’t get banks to lend them much needed money for investments. Many hard working families suffer from cuts to education, health care and pensions. 43 million people in Europe can't pay for their daily meals, they depend on soup kitchens and food banks. 120 million people are at risk of poverty. This is shameful for the richest continent of the world. And it clearly shows what our priority must be: Werk-werk-werk. Jobs, jobs, jobs - and good jobs!

One issue that clearly must be on top of the in-tray of the next Commission President is revising the Posting of Workers. Freedom of movement is one of the greatest achievements of European integration. But one that is increasingly abused by some companies. We currently have 1 million workers posted abroad. More and more of them are exploited and underpaid. We witness fake self-employment and quasi-slavery. Romanian butchers working for 3 Euros in German slaughterhouses! That's a scandal! We have to put an end to this!

We have to ensure that the freedoms of the single market do not end up destroying our social rights. Equal pay for equal work, as laid down in the European Social Charter, must finally become a reality in Europe! And we can make it a reality by revising the Posting of Workers Directive! So let's do it!

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me conclude with some remarks on the banking union: The banking union is a historic project; in its importance only on par with the single market. The banking union is our lessons learned from the crisis. Three goals we want to realise:

• - 

  to finally break the vicious circle between bank debt and sovereign debt;

• - 

  to secure more rapid debt relief and, where necessary, the recapitalisation of the banking sector;

• - 

  to protect the taxpayer from having to bail-out banks again.

Now we have to make good on that promise. We must be honest: this will not be easy.

And it will cost money. But doing nothing will cost more money. Every day the crisis goes on, the cost of resolving the crisis rises. Every day the banking crisis goes on, the banks tighten the money supply for investments a bit more, economic recovery is further delayed, states are deprived of the chance to consolidate their budgets, and unemployment rises. To end the credit crunch we urgently need the banking union.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I know, some people argue that it would be unfair if banks in one country have to stand in for banks in another country. But that's not really true. The Banking Union is simply an insurance system for banks. Banks save banks! - That's the fundamental idea. The European Parliament believes that it is only fair that the owners, creditors and major investors should be liable before the taxpayer has to step in. And we need a European insurance system because banks live internationally but die nationally - and the shock waves of a bank failure do not stop at the state borders. It's a European problem and we must find a European solution for it. I'm convinced that we have to stop looking at these issues through national lenses only and stop thinking about them in moralistic terms. Publicist Geert Mak has captured this very well, when he wrote, that only for the Dutch and the Germans Schuld is Schuld, debt is guilt, and thus a moral issue. With guilt and atonement, he continues you will however not solve a financial crisis and manage to get an economy back on its feet.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Another contentious issue is the question who will have the power to decide on the shutting down of a bank. Some see the Commission in this role others the Council. Let me be frank: The Cyprus case has demonstrated once and for all that the current system is not working. We lost months because the Eurozone governments did not admit that the country's banking system was no longer sustainable. In the end it cost a fortune to save what was left of the country's banking system. And the people in Cyprus were enraged because they were under the impression that politicians from northern EU-countries had seized their small savings.

We have to face the truth: We cannot afford long-winded negotiations in the Council when a bank failure is imminent. I know that this is not popular in some countries, other countries oppose the bail-in of investors, others the direct re-capitalisation of banks through the ESM. But if we want to have a banking union that works and achieves its objectives, we will all have to bite the bullet.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We need to reform the EU and we can reform the EU. We must get the EU to focus on the important things: Getting Europe back to work and setting up the banking union. Let's not get distracted by numbers and statistics. Let's make sure that our policies improve people's lives for the better.

We can't undo globalisation.

We can't hide from a changing world. Yes, we want to keep the nation-sates, because they give us a home and an identity. But we do need the EU as an additional layer of protection. In the coming months leading up to the European elections, I don't want to have a debate about being for or against the EU. I want to have a debate on what kind of Europe we want. And I'm looking forward to hear your views on this.

Thank you for your attention.