[Netherlands] European Union Talks with Sweden

[Dutchy]

---

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kingdom of the Netherlands​

---

Recipient: Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Sweden (Connor)
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

 

[Connor]

Government of Sweden
Löfven Administration​

---

Dear Atzo Nicolaï,

Please extend my thanks onwards to Prime Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and much of a likeness to yourself for your correspondence - the Amsterdam Summit sits at the very top of the Swedish foreign policy as we assist in the promotion of regional development, something I am confident the Treaty on the European Union will take great strides in doing so itself. I await the formal invitiation, but please accept this as my pre-emptive intention to attend.

I have thoroughly read the draft attached to your message and for the most part I am confident this is the foundation of a strong entity.

As you know, over the years, matters of law have been of significant importance to the Kingdom of Sweden as we have made use of the International Court of Justice on numerous occasions to seek fair trial against international parties. However, we are also under no illusion that some of our policies both on matters of domestic and international importance, have been seen as controversial and have seen great condemnation in the Global Assembly and general political forum. I am sure it is of no surprise to you that this area came under substantial scrutiny within our cabinet. Our fundamental concerns surround Title IV Article 7.4 and Title V Article 9.1 and 9.3 - our fear is these areas will give the European Union the power to force our hand in matters of domestic law or in matters of controversial subject matter. It is our view that these provisions enable the union to make legislative decisions on behalf of members who potentially opposes a proposal simply by being overpowered by a majority. This seems inherently wrong?

I do agree with the structure of the union and the election procedure for the President of the European Council. Similarly I agree with the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union and the accession and withdrawal provisions. Provisions regarding European Law and legislative provisions (point 5 and 6 of your attached questions) are of great concern to our government and will have a significant inference on our accession to any proposed union.

Regards,
Margot Wallström
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Department of Foreign Affairs
Kingdom of Sweden

Dutchy

---

CONFIDENTIAL
Crown Copyright © Kingdom of Sweden
All information is subject to the Swedish Document Classification and Security Act 1995​

 

[Dutchy]

---

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kingdom of the Netherlands​

---

Recipient: Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Sweden (Connor)
Cc: -
Subject: Technical Talks following the Grand European Summit
Attachment: Draft Treaty on the European Union
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL

Your Excellency,

I thank you for your constructive response and I am eager to discuss your response further. Furthermore, we are honoured that we can expect your attendance at the Amsterdam Summit.

Your concerns surrounding the referenced articles are noted and shall be added as a point of dicussion during the Amsterdam Summit. Our draft includes these provisions as we believe that it is crucial that European Law is effective, respected, and upheld. However, as you mentioned the possibility for it to be twisted may pose a threat to the national sovereignty of the Member States. Ideally, the Union would only legislate in areas of mutual cooperation, such as economic, monetary, cultural, and security policy. Our view is that the Union does not unilaterally decide upon the borders of the Member States. To that effect, if the Kingdom of Sweden so desires they can draft a clause to that effect which can be submitted at the Amsterdam Summit.

Another point which may alleviate any fears is an amendment to the Ordinary Legislative Procedure as described in Article 10. We have attempted to strike a balance between effectiveness and sovereignty. We fear that the adoption of unanimity would leave the Union unable to function in times of economic or security crises when Member States have different ideas on the way forward. Our hope was that adopting multiple readings and the requirement of a 2/3 majority vote for legislation would promt consensus building among the Member States. However, an alternative option is to adjust the Legislative Procedure to require unanimity in order for European Law to be adopted, this would ensure that Sweden's national integrity is not harmed. Once again, this is a topic that shall be added to the agenda of the Amsterdam Summit.

I hope I may have addressed some of your concerns and we stand open to further discussion regarding Sweden's apprehension of certain clauses.

Yours Sincerely,

Atzo Nicolaï
Secretary of State for European Affairs