This article is the introduction to this special issue in which the Europeanisation of Dutch polity, politics and policy forms the central focus of attention. The main question we address in this special issue is to what extent the Netherlands has changed under the influence of processes of Europeanisation. This article first discusses the state-of-the-art Europeanisation literature; then it sets out to discuss four problems with this literature. Based on the insights generated by the contributors to this special issue, the authors conclude that for a better understanding of processes of Europeanisation, the EU should no longer be seen as an actor, but rather as an (cluster of) arena(s) in which a variety of actors (member states, EU institutions, interest groups, et cetera) are trying to achieve their political goals.

Member states must transpose European directives into national rules. This process, however, is not without problems. The Netherlands regularly transposes directives too late. Moreover, very often the content of the national transposition rules does not match the adaptations required by the directives. This article examines whether political resistance or administrative and legal weaknesses cause these problems. The author concludes that problems regarding transposition are caused by a culture of neglect and lack of priority for EU policies. Improving coordination procedures, formal legislative processes, and information facilities will not solve transposition problems as long as the cultural aspect of the problem isn't adequately addressed.

This article examines the impact of the EU on the content of policy. It analyses two cases in which the EU affected Dutch policies in different ways: in the case of packaging waste policy the EU exerted direct influence through EU legislation, whereas in the case of railway policy, the EU only had an indirect impact through policy models. Nevertheless, the impact of the EU was greater in the railway policy case than in the packaging waste case. This suggests that domestic political processes are more important in explaining the impact of the EU on policy content, than the degree of legal adaptation pressure. In addition, the article shows that the EU has affected the policy networks in the area of packaging waste policy, even though Dutch corporatist structures have shown remarkable resilience and have even been strengthened by the implementation requirements of EU legislation in this field.

The EU is transforming the function and power of the Dutch parliament as an institution, and the way in which its principal actors, the governing and opposition parliamentary party groups, interact with each other and the government. This article seeks to address the question: How does parliamentary scrutiny over EU decision-making function in the Netherlands and how has this new role for parliament changed both parliamentary and executive relations in the country and the interaction of parties in parliament? For the purposes of this research, this paper uses the typology of King. The author has conducted a number of in-depth interviews with Dutch MPs. Overall, this article concludes the process of parliamentary scrutiny over EU matters in the Netherlands is no longer exclusively about finding a national consensus towards the outside world, but increasingly mirrors the rough and tumble of normal, domestic politics.

This article examines the impact of European integration on the Dutch constitutional order. It argues that within this constitutional order, the roles of the executive and the judiciary have been strengthened at the expense of the role of parliament. Although these shifts are partly the outcome of domestic developments, they have also been caused by the process of European integration. Within the Netherlands, there has hardly been any debate on the role of the EU and EU law in the Dutch constitutional order and no formal changes to the written constitution have been made. This can be explained, on the one hand, by the openness of the Dutch legal order for international law and, on the other hand, by the fact that many constitutional practices have not been codified in the formal constitution.