[Netherlands] European Union Talks with Poland

[Dutchy]

---

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kingdom of the Netherlands​

---

Recipient: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Poland (ManBear)
Cc: -
Subject: Technical Talks following the Grand European Summit
Attachment: Draft Treaty on the European Union
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

Your Excellency,

I am contacting you today under the directive of Prime Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to convey our intention to invite your government to the Amsterdam Summit, to be organised in the next few months, where a Treaty on the European Union can be signed by all participants. A formal invitation will be sent at a later date.

Prior to the holding of the Amsterdam Summit, we are hoping to hold discussions with all prospective participants individually in order to discuss the current draft, hear your government’s position on various policy areas, and to address and desire for amendments and changes to the current draft.

Attached to this message is the latest draft of the Treaty. I kindly request that you review this version and convey your position on the draft (whether that be in full agreement, or in the case that you have any changes to submit).

Additionally, I would kindly request that you answer the following questions in order to know your positions on some of the most critical provisions of the draft.

1. Do you agree with the current structure of the Union, that it will consist of:​

a. European Council (consisting of Heads of State or Government);
b. Council of the European Union (consisting of cabinet-level officials and lower level civil servants);
c. European Commission (which will support the President of the European Council in day-to-day administrative tasks), and;
d. European Court of Justice (to ensure the enforcement of European Law).​

2. Do you agree with the election procedure for the President of the European Council?​

a. Additionally, do you agree with the term-length and maximum number of terms for the President?​

4. Do you agree with the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union?
5. Do you agree with the provisions regarding European Law?
6. Do you agree with the legislative provisions regarding European Law?
7. Do you agree with the accession and withdrawal provisions?​

Yours Sincerely,

Atzo Nicolaï
Secretary of State for European Affairs

 

[ManBear]

To: Atzo Nicolai, Secretary of State for European Affairs Dutchy

Subject: Technical Talks following the Grand European Summit

CC: Bogdan Borusewicz

Security: Secured and Encrypted by POSP

Greetings, First I would like to thank you for reaching out to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but I must apologize, Minister Borusewicz is away for talks within Ireland at the present time and the email has been forwarded to the Deputy Minister who has forwarded it to my office. To answer your questions in the most concise way possible; 1. While I do agree with the proposed structure of the Union, I do not feel it is currently necessary to split the decision making processes of the Union between the European Council as well as the Council of the European Union. To me it feels as if we are layering decision making processes within several layers of bureaucracy. With the Union in its infancy, it just feels like unnecessary red tape, to put it in layman's terms. But I will also go along with the vote of the other member nations of the Union. I was also under the impression we had all decided to allow each member nation to choose who would be member of the European Council, through voting, appointing, or assuming the position as Head of State. 2. I do agree with election procedure and maximum term length for the President of the European Council. 4. I agree with the rotation of the presidency of the Council of the European Union 5. I do agree with the provisions regarding European Law 6. I agree with the legislative provisions regarding European Law 7. I agree with the accession and withdrawal provisions tentatively, should the withdrawal provisions be explained with greater detail in regards to the withdrawal agreement.

Sincerely, Stanislaus Grabowski King of Poland

 

[Dutchy]

---

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kingdom of the Netherlands​

---

Recipient: King of Poland, Royal Household, Kingdom of Poland (ManBear)
Cc: -
Subject: Technical Talks following the Grand European Summit
Attachment: -
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

Your Majesty,

I am honoured and humbled to receive your promt response to my previous message. I am thankful to see that your government's position is in line with the draft and the Netherlands looks forward to inviting a Polish delegation to Amsterdam.

I would like to address your concenr regarding point 1. Our proposal to structure the decision-making process in this manner is two fold, the first being to ensure that the valuable time of Ministers and Heads of State or Government is not constantly consumed by EU meetings on European law. Secondly, we feel that it is important that any European Law is passed by consensus as much as possible. The European Union has to be an organisation for all, not just for a majority. Consequently, we feel that the most efficient process is to level the decision-making procedure as proposed.

I shall quickly detail the process in a more understandable non-legal language. To begin, every Member State will have a permanent representative seated in the Council of Permanent Representatives, this council will be the starting point for all European Law, this is where the draft legislation can be debated and amended as much as possible before being voted on. Ideally, the time taken to debate and amend the draft will ensure that the Law is passed by unanimity and the legislation will become European Law,

However if this is not the case, then we feel that it is beneficial that the issues which prevented certain Member States from voting for the legislation needs to be discussed at higher-level, namely the Council, which consists of the cabinet-level officials with more authority to discuss and approve legislation. Hopefully all legislation receives two-thirds majority constent at this second stage, we are suggesting a two-thirds majority voting requirement as we want to prevent the inception of veto powers for the Member States and the two-thirds majority still ensures a large part of the Union approves the legislation.

Lastly, if the draft legislation receives a simple majority, but not a two-thirds majority, the legislation will progress to the European Council, consisting of Heads of State and Government, the highest level of executive authority in any state, where it will receive its final review. We hope that this would only be the case for the most contensious of laws, issues regarding common policies, etc.

I hope I have been able to explain our thinking regarding our proposal. Please feel free to send me any more questions your government may have regarding the draft and I would be more than happy to try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Yours Sincerely,

Atzo Nicolaï
Secretary of State for European Affairs