From bending to stressing national interests? The impact of reforms and enlargements on EU negotiation between 1988-2008

This study discusses whether and how the role of the (Dutch) Permanent Representation has changed over the past twenty years. It has been written on the occasion of the farewell a Dutch senior official who served at the Permanent Representation to the EU between 1988 and 2008. Building on interviews with officials from national and EU administrations who worked with him during that time, the study has been able to identify major developments in the position of the Permanent Representation and, following from this, in the nature of European integration more generally.

The EU has changed markedly over the past two decades due to, among others, three waves of enlargement, an increase in membership from 12 to 27 Member States, institutional changes following 'Maastricht' , 'Amsterdam' and 'Nice' (and with 'Lisbon' casting its shadow), and Member States changing their political commitments to the EU. These changes have had major effects on the negotiation process. At least as far as the Dutch Permanent Representation is concerned, control by the capital has increased. Moreover, the atmosphere in European integration has changed from a search for compromises in the broader European interest towards a concern for defending national interests and opting for derogations. These and other developments have resulted in less leeway for the Permanent Representation, as is also underlined by a drop in seniority of the negotiators based in Brussels. The changes in the position of EU negotiators may point to a more profound shift in European integration with governments putting the brakes on, and raise strategic questions such as: should national administrations reflect on how they can best direct their negotiators to ensure control while granting them the necessary flexibility? Is there a shift in the skills and attitude required to be a good negotiator? Have the Member States gone too far in defending national interests and neglecting the 'power of ideas' at the expense of furthering European integration?