Another Dutch No?
People whistle through the Binnenhof鈥檚 cobbled square on their bikes, scarcely giving a glance to either the rather lovely understated architecture or the politicians bustling in and out of the many ministries.
This part of The Hague could be a quiet monument to democracy. Even a rather showy fountain in brown and gold doesn鈥檛 undermine the impression of a rather harmonious relationship between the rulers and the people who chose them.
The office of the Dutch Prime Minister in one courtyard, the entrance to the in another, various ministries scattered around these two unpretentious courtyards, which have long been the seat of the government of the Netherlands.
But when cabinet ministers meet at Number 19 later today, will they give the people a say over the new European
My strong guess is No, but as you鈥檒l see that won鈥檛 quite be the end of the story.
The is a coalition. The dominant partners, the , are - like all the governments in the European Union - in favour of the treaty and anxious to avoid a referendum. Gordon Brown too will be hoping they don鈥檛 hold one.
It was of course the Days after the French voted "Non" their "Nee" made sure it was in effect dead. This saved Tony Blair from holding a referendum he never wanted. But a second Dutch referendum now would put wind in the sails of those who want one in Britain and pile the pressure on Mr Brown.
Curious allies
Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, a Christian Democrat, said I would have to wait and see what the cabinet decided but he was sure there would be a unanimous decision.
"We listened to the Dutch public, they said No to the constitutional treaty, now we have a treaty which is completely different," he said. "It is not forecasting a European superstate, there is a clear division between what should be decided in member states and what should be decided in Europe."
The Dutch Christian Democrats have very curious allies in their argument. The shot to prominence during the referendum campaign, noisily and successfully championing a No. So you would think their position would be obvious. But they don鈥檛 like referendums, and never have.
But it's not just that. One of their MPs, Esme Weigman, told me: "The new treaty is just a modification of the Treaty of Nice, it's another situation from when we had a constitutional treaty. The decisions during the summit in June were very good."
They now have three seats in the cabinet so I suggested that cynics might say the reason for their change of heart was obvious, that they were now part of the government and wanted to stay part of it.
She said, "Yes, people say the Christian Union has changed. But it's not the Christian Union that has changed but the cabinet that has changed on Europe. The most important thing is now Europe will go forward in co-operation but not go forward to a United States of Europe."
The problem for the Dutch government is their partners. It's the party's policy to hold referendums. Even though it is for the treaty.
The Dutch parliament is a rather wonderful building, combining old and new with sweeping empty halls and strange giant mobiles hanging in the air. Comfy too: I wish we had had squishy leather sofas and flat-screen TVs during my days at Westminster. It makes the traditional journalistic job of hanging around to 鈥渄oorstep鈥 ministers a lot more comfortable.
Agonies
The most interesting politician I spoke to was Labour's Luuk Blom. He said: "I鈥檓 in favour of a referendum It's part of our programme, referendums are a new way to decided things in a country, to link people more closely to politics. You have to take the people very seriously. The No was a very strong No... I鈥檓 in favour of a referendum, and the chances are 50/50."
But he likes the treaty and was obviously in some agonies about what the people might decide if they did get that vote, a view that I think is very common among the political class in the Netherlands, and indeed elsewhere.
"Is it possible to take a No this time? Holland would be in a very difficult position in Europe. We鈥檇 be on the bench in football terms. When the Dutch said No two years ago there was a possibility to start new negotiations. That鈥檚 not possible any more. This treaty is it. So if we said No, would we be in the European Union? Maybe that should be the question."
The parliament is open to a constant stream of visitors who come to listen to the debates and look at the building. But during the time I was there I never saw anyone approach the displays and the giant yellow flags that cover one wall and part of the floor, emblazoned with the question "Hoezo EU?" ("What鈥檚 the EU about?")
There were different views, of course, from those I spoke to, but none of the No-voters said they were happy with the new treaty. In fact none of them mentioned the treaty itself: their complaints were broader.
Professor of political science at the surprised me, telling, me that he thought a referendum was likely. He added: "The mood is Eurosceptic, there is no sense of European identity. There is still a sense that the European space is a space of globalisation, of Islamisation, that Brussels is a superstate. The climate is still quite volatile, so the government is afraid of a second failure. It's still quite easy for the Eurosceptics to win a referendum."
This is exactly the fear of politicians that people, supposedly voting on a technical matter, will give the answer to a big political question, and an answer which most European politicians do not like - and regard in fact as untenable, unpractical, unworkable.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Perhaps the problem could be solved if politicians didn't just go for such simplistic "binary" (yes/no) answers -which are also manipulated to get the desired answer.
Maybe a more "consultative" referendum would be the answer -or possibly a series of refernda -in which a serious attempt was made to discover what exactly people were supporting and what they were opposing.
It seems that in the previous round -some people were voting "against" because the treaty was too "free market" while others were voting "against" because it was too anti-free market..... others voted against, perhaps, as a protest against national government -or because they felt they were being manipulated...... Surely, it is both silly and unfair to lump all these reasons together in a single vote-and then claim that this represents the will of the people.
If politicians insist on playing silly tricks -then they must not be surprised if the end up getting hung in their own machinations......
There is no doubt that the EU must become more democratic. But making progress dependent on the whims of a few people in one or two countries is nothing but terror of a minority against the majority.
Why would the Dutch be the ultimate arbiter of EU rules? In particular as they are not applying referenda to domestic policies and the 2005 referendum was anyway more about Dutch domestic concerns than about the EU constitutional treaty.
I bet that a Polish referendum would quickly focus on abortion, a German referendum on immigration and a Finnish one on NATO. It seems that it is never about Europe.
European democracy must be exercised by all Europeans. If there is to be a referendum it should be on EU level. But are the petty-minded nationalists all over Europe willing to accept being over-ruled by "foreigners"?
If the Dutch government decides to hold referendum on the EU new Treaty, it risks another NO from the voters, for many reasons most of which have little to do with the EU and much with Dutch frustrations and anxieties.
If the coalition government decides to hold no referendum, it risks to see its majority broken in the Parliament.
A devil's dilemma and new troubles for the EU.
Dragan Klaic, Amsterdam
How arrogant these politicians are!
Someone should remind them that they are *not* rulers: they are temporary administrators of a sovereign state, there by the grace of the Dutch people.
And why, in a democracy, are politicians knowingly trying to act against the wishes of the people? If they aren't in Government representing the Dutch population, then who exactly are they representing?
It is for these reasons that I believe EU-level politics are rotten to the core - and the EU itself is the bad apple.
Mark,
Note there are also interesting developments in Scotland with the strong possibility the Scottish parliament will call a consultative vote here.
In the event this happens, rest assured Mr. Grunebaum, I for one at least will vote NO strictly on the European governance issues. Local referenda are entirely appropriate because there are differential EU tax (called "net contribution")rates. If you are British or Dutch you pay rather a lot of tax for a political movement that clearly does not enjoy majority support.
I am one of those petty-minded nationalists who will not willingly accept being over-ruled by foreigners.
My country is part of Europe geographically but I am not a European (whatever one of those is) I'm English and proud of it.
I cannot see how you can take 26 (is it now) countries, all with different cultures, languages, hopes and fears and say that one size will fit all. It just cannot happen without force being applied.
You cannot even get neighbours to agree with each other, what chance do you have with whole countries.
Let's hope the Dutch bite the bullet, & hold a 2nd referendum on the EU's proposed new constitution - this time called the EU Reform Treaty. And let's hope the Dutch again, just like they did in 2005, say "No"!
To Ronald Gr眉nebaum (2): You cannot have an EU-wide referendum to decide if the Dutch will accept their law being determined by Brussels institutions they have no control over. Only the Dutch people can answer that question. There never has, nor ever will be, supranational democracy. It is a political oxymoron.
Another Dutch No-Hopefully Yes (I bet you that's what Gordon thinking).
I find it scary the way Phil M and others like him, are so blinded by petty nationalistic concerns. It's not even a rational form of nationalism as it hurts national interests and will leave the UK and other EU countries directionless and impotetent.
Every eurosceptic seems to be against the EU for some broad ideological pie in the sky belief about nationality and soverienty, but they don't have any practical reason for sticking us all in the mud. They will shout on about how the EU is anti-democratic, bloated with red tape and paralysed by politics and special interests. But if you try explaining to them that this treaty is designed to make the EU more democratic, to cut trough the red tape and to marginalise special interests they won't listen. We might aswell talk to a brick wall.
It's like an treating and elderly person who constantly complains about being sick and all the pain they're in, but refuses take their medicine because for some unfounded reason they believe it will make them worse.
The most interesting comment in the above is
"... if we said No, would we be in the European Union? Maybe that should be the question."
So is this the choice? Vote "YES" or leave?
34 people in my office, all well educated, in IT work.
Age range is from 24-55, 50-50 male/female, some from minority ethnic groups. Voting patterns from Tory right through LibDem, Labour and as far as a couple of RESPECT (the SWP/CND/Stop The War coalition). So I would suggest that that is a reasonably accurate reflection of the general population.
Of the 34, 6 would not bother to vote in a referendum. The remaining 28 would, with 20 voting against the treaty and only 8 voting in favour.
If it was a referendum on total withdrawal, 19 would vote for OUT of the EU, 6 would want to remain in, and 9 wouldn't bother to vote.
People's opinions of the EU do not refelct the opinions of the parties they vote for, quite the opposite.
I reckon that the leaders of the big 3 parties are seriously out of step with the voting supporters, and either can't or won't accept that fact.
If democratic nation states are 鈥渦ntenable, unpractical, unworkable鈥 then how have we managed all these years with this Constitution/treaty? How does the rest of the world operate outside the EU without such treaties? The remark of the Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen that this treaty is 鈥渃ompletely different鈥 from the Constitution rejected so decisively by his people is simply beneath contempt. He is not fit to hold any elected office if he thinks we are so stupid to believe that.
It's a bit of a shame that the UK media only takes any interest in the affairs of another EU nation when there is a "Eurosceptic" point to be made.
You only have to watch German TV news to realise just how insular and badly informed we are with regard to the EU, and other member states compared with Germans. Many other nations are similarly well informed.
Perhaps if our media took more of a balanced interest in Europe, Europeans and what the EU actually does (rather than a never ending list of negative propaganda) our population may be slightly less hostile.
In Response to Ronald Gr眉nebaum:
The main worry isn't European co-operation. The problem is that the new treaty will reduce our influence within the EU, in fact, it pretty much reduces us to an irrelevant entity, easy to ignore if France, Germany, Britain, or any other state with sufficient demographic power wishes so.
10 years ago, that may not have mattered, in the end we are "only" a country of 16 million, so we could be at peace with influence corresponding with that, but when Germany and France blatantly (and Italy covertly) ignored the stability pact and got away with it, the game completely changed, the "big" states were exposed to be willing to wipe their behinds with agreed-upon treaties when they became inconvenient. The EU is no longer percieved as a benign entity but as a tool of the demographically powerful states to dominate the demographically weaker ones.
Basically the trust has vanished. And accusations of the "dumb Dutch voter using the referendum to voice his displeasure over his national government"-story only fuels that sentiment, it suggests that the rest of the EU, indeed, doesn't take us and our concerns serious. Your "terror"-accusation displays that response perfectly. In fact, how DARE you equate us to the likes of Hamas, IRA and RAF! We were trying to oppose an arrangement that we percieve as bad for ourselves through all political means at our disposal, not planting bombs in Strasbourg!
I'm against further EU integration for at least 25 years, first the individual states will have to PROVE they are willing to accept the EU even when it is inconvenient. That is something the current crop of EU backers simply refuse to understand, we're not against the EU per s茅, but we're not interested in further treaties negotiated over our heads when we already know our neighbours can decide "it doesn't apply to us" the day after without any fear of repercussion because they can bully the rest of the EU in complying with their desires.
Doesn't the new treaty feature something like 96% of exactly the same words as the old treaty?
How anyone can claim, then, that they are totally different, is beyond me.
fully agree with Trevor in posting #1. There needs to be clarity about what people really vote on, otherwise politicians will continue to misuse the referendums (or avoid them) for their own political benefit, and one can go as far that the best way for the anti-Europe MP's to protect their lucrative jobs in the European Parliament is to be as anti as possible. To further illustrate Trevor's point, the British Unions would likely recommend a NO, because the treaty is not going far enough because of the UK opt-out on the fundamental rights charter. So their NO would add-up to the NO of the Conservatives who believe that it's going too far (although, remains to be seen what position they'll take if they get elected in power one day). In the interest of democracy, it would be best to recognize the real issue, namely is this an economic union, or in addition also a socio-political union? That misalignment on "mission" creates all the paralysis and agony, which cannot continue foreever. And let people have their say via a referendum in each country, and the countries who want it just to be an economic union would't be bothered by the countries who want it to be more, and visa versa. So we would have both, and economic union, and some countries could move ahead with a socio-political union, and it also could make the question about membership of Turkey easier to resolve, as they potentially would join the economic union.
In order to serve democracy well, let's make sure that it's clear for people what they vote on, and yes let them have that vote. Imagine that half of the current negative energy would be used to create positive things........
First of all, prof. de Beus and many of his Amsterdam counterparts tend to be seen as elitist by the rest of the country and don't necessarily understand the opinion of the Dutch people.
I think the Dutch politicians are very much aware they are there only by the good graces of the Dutch people, more than ever after cabinet fell in 2002.
Even though a referendum sounds very democratic and is always popular we have to be very careful because there is a big difference between popular opinion and prudent decision making.
You could argue the treaty is good or bad but the EU itself is required more than ever before. We face many global issues and if Europe can't make a unified statement we lose the opportunity to have a significant say in the important issues.
Not only that but the new treaty is radically different from the old proposed 'constitution.'
Being a skeptic is always good, being pigheadedly opposed to something because it scares you or for some misguided near-jingoist notion that everything was better before the big bad EU came alone is not.
One way of neutralising (or at least simplifying) the problem of EU referanda might be to institute a single European plebiscite to be held simultaneously in all 27 members. It would improve democratic accountability (ie. a simple majority of European citizens would have to vote yes - rather than the current situation where 5 million voters in, for example Ireland and Denmark, can disrupt a decision concerning 500 million people) and allow the 'supranationalisation' of contentious issues and so allow domestic politicians to campaign on their conscience rather than being always tied by strict party discipline. Putting contentious and divisive trade issues into the EU level has successfully reduced domestic political squabbling and the old tendency towards populist causes such as 'National Champions' and tarrifs to protect failing industries (excluding agriculture, of course!)
Applying this model to referenda would further equalise the rights of EU citizens (everyone's vote would have the same value as everyone elses) and remove much of the heat from domestic debates on Europe. It would improve democratic accountability (an aim of most Eurosceptics), would further european integration (an aim of most Europhiles) and would cement the direct links between citizens and the EU institutions (an aim of those institutions). It would also end the 'blame game' that accompanies the frequent defeat of treaties in individual countries.
Of course, any such change would require 'old style' ratification first, which could be a little tricky....
I am a proponent of a European federation, which I understand has now become something of a four-letter word. Many claim that Europeans lack a common identity and that there should be common cooperation but not a "super state".
I suppose what they really mean is that the EU should be dissolved, or could perhaps survive as an advisory body, with every single EU rule or decision that has any impact on national laws to be ratified in each individual case by national legislators who would be free to decide at their absolute discretion whether or not to ratify it. This would be the only method for preserving democracy in European countries if we accept that there is no way of making any decision-making at the EU level democratically accountable given the alleged absence of an EU demos.
In such context, what do the opponents of a European "super state" mean by "cooperation"? It seems to me that the only honest answer is that cooperation among fully sovereign countries means that each country can choose to go its way, pursue its own policies and maintain such relationships with other countries (European or not) as it deems beneficial. What they are really suggesting is complete divorce, which will mean an end of the euro, the single market, and the free movement of people, goods, services and capital.
Maybe this is what Europeans really want but they should think twice before asking for it: once they get it there may be no way back.
What do governments of traditionally democratic countries of "Old Europe" do when it looks like majority of their citizens are against encting legislative douments they support?
Why? Isn't it obvious?
Uphold an age-honoured democratic tradition by denying those citizens the right to vote on it.
Here's wondering whether British MP's under pressure from their electorats will force Brown government to hold a referendum on this Phenix.
For the document in question is simply the same old EU Constitution which rose from ashes of defeat. It's been disguised by dressing it in other bird's plums, but if that bird looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...well, it sure ain't an eagle.
@ James Loughton: Government Minister is not an elected office in the Netherlands. Ministers are appointed by the crown and cannot be MPs at the same time.
In response to Rogier van den Akker (12):
You say that the new treaty reduces national power. That is true, as in some areas of EU, decisions don't have to be unanimous. Now completely different thing is to ask are the changes in the Reform Treaty right, do they offer more practicality and do they benefit European citizens in long term.
As what comes to voting, I think that the change is for better. As decisions don't have to be unanimous, no EU country can take the whole EU as a hostage and there is less need for backroom deals. Also as to make a decision, there has to be both a majority of member countries voting for it (55%) and those member countries must count for majority of citizens (65%). What this means is that there is no way for big countries, nor medium or small countries to stream roll a decisions as. So basically to make a decision you still have to get large majority of EU countries to accept.
You also mentioned how big countries disregarded the Stability pact. That is true and it's a problem, but the only way you can fix it, is to give EU more power. The whole Stability pact, when it was being created, was criticed on being an empty shell as the member countries didn't give ECB nor EU any relevant stick to keep the pact in place and member countries checked in.
I'm very sorry that you don't fell European integration as something that should be carried out. Unfortunately in this world where we are going to see both China and India rise to a super power status in next 50 years, and countries like Indonesia and Brazil rise to major powers, there is no way that European countries can keep up with competition if they are not allied and well integrated into a single entity.
Hi Mark,
The Dutch have traditionally been at the centre of European unity, and having largely descended from the Franks, are perhaps the archetypal Europeans. Ever since the Franks inherited Western Europe from the Romans in the 5th century, their descendents (wherever the Frankish dialects are presently spoken) have served as a bridge between Latin and Germanic culture. The EU political centres in Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg all have a very strong historic connection with the Franks. The most famous Frank, Charlemagne, is of course, considered the 'father of Europe'.
Dutch society is by no means perfect, and their traditional tolerance has been put under severe strain in recent years, but as Europe's premier polyglots, least jingoistic, and perhaps most cosmopolitan, I can imagine that they feel as if they are waiting for everyone else to catch up with them. I hope they are not getting weary and cynical, as their rejection of the old constitution might have suggested. Choosing not to have a referendum on the new treaty is hopefully a sign that it is more in the spirit of what they have worked so hard to achieve. Open society and peaceful co-existence, both in their society and within Europe.
L.S.,
Latest news: Cabinet have decided not to have a referendum. Left-wing opposition are preparing an initiative law to have one anyway, which will only pass if the Labour party break ranks with its coalition partners.
As for mr Curtis: we hav sth. like 99,sth % of our DNA in common with monkeys, but the rest still makes up a big difference.
My opinion on the different/the same question so far: (Warning, this is fairly nuanced!)
The legal situation created if this treaty were to be ratified is not much different from the one that we would have gotten with the constitutional treaty. Then again, it is also not that much different from the current one. The constitutional treaty wasn't a big deal because it made drastic changes in the way Brussels works, because it didn't, but because it purported to "establish a constitution for Europe". The reform treaty does no such thing, so one can reasonably conclude that it is the same as the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, that we (NL) did not have a referendum over either.
"To Ronald Gr眉nebaum (2): You cannot have an EU-wide referendum to decide if the Dutch will accept their law being determined by Brussels institutions they have no control over. Only the Dutch people can answer that question. There never has, nor ever will be, supranational democracy. It is a political oxymoron. [#5]
Thank you, John, for saving me a trouble of writing this myself.
The problem as I see it as outsider is, that an idea of United States of Europe (as a "counterbalance to USA")
has been crammed down the throats of people who clearly still indentify themselves first and foremost as British, French, Dutch, etc., not as Europeans. An example of Basks, Catalonians, Kurds, etc., demonstrates clearly that you cannot force people to abandon their identity as they see it. Look what happened to the "Soviets" and Soviet identity as soon as USSR collapsed: suddently the rest of the world has discovered that despite 70 years of forceful brainwashing and even ruthless repressions, there were Belarussians, Estonians, Georgians Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Lithuanians, Turkmens, Ukrainians and dozen other nationalities still living in that Gulag.
[Have I mentioned Chechens?]
Perhaps with time a genuine European identity will emerge and come to dominate in the Old World. But it clearly doesn't exist now and efforts to deny that fact are, well...Orwellian.
In response to James Loughton (10):
The problem is that the world is changing. In 19th and 20th centuries European countries and US could dominate the rest of the globe as they were more industrialized, more advanced and could leverage this power into a military and political dominance. As now the world is becoming more flat and the advantages of western countries are decreasing against rising super powers like China and India, it will become more and more difficult for small countries to operate both in global economics and politics.
So keeping this in mind, my question to you is, how can European countries in the future effectively deal with the new super powers like China and India? Even today many European countries have big difficulties to make Washington or Moscow to listen to them. If we Europeans don't strengthen our union with each other, if we don't concentrate our power, then in today's and even more in tomorrows world, Europe will be powerless to effectively shape the future of the world.
The only answer to my question is powerful EU that works effectively and can use effective force be it in the fields of economics and politics and even military. If you have an better idea, just please bring it on.
@Rogier van den Akker:
Hear, Hear!
As long as some EU countries are not penalized when they break treaties, as long as some countries get subsidized to 'compensate' farmers growing crops which are far cheaper to import from other (EU) countries, as long as they try to push almost identical agreements under a different name in a slightly different order, I am not in favor of the treaty, whatever they call it.
7. At 11:42 AM on 21 Sep 2007, A Sinclair wrote: "But if you try explaining to them that this treaty is designed to make the EU more democratic, to cut trough the red tape and to marginalise special interests they won't listen."
In the UK we have had health scares with regards to E numbers in foods, we are no longer permitted to ban these foods, as it is an EU competence.
People have requested that London goes back to using the routemaster bus, as opposed to the bendy new ones, unfortunately we cannot change back as transport is another EU competence.
Others include the HIP packs, again our government cannot cancel them as it is another EU competence, as is the putting horrific pictures on cigarette packets, water metres etc ad infinatum.
Now how can that be democracy, whereby control over things we need to change is not in our own hands?
When the english held the referendum in the 70's it was for an EEC not the EU!
Dear all,
I am Dutch and currently living and working in Ireland. I have been working abroad a lot and have not been very interested in home politics.
However, this news does disturb me. Yes we are a liberal and open minded country. I do believe that majority have a good sense of morality and values.
Unfortunately, also in the Netherlands politics have not always been an example of this.
We all know that a majority of Dutch politicians welcome a new or revised EU constitution. The country might not.
There may be something to say for it. But a bigger issue I feel is that a few of us are pushing for a decision that clearly most do not want or put in doubt.
As one of the many commoners I also feel that the ruling class takes the term democracy lightly and not always act on it.
This worries me. A few more steps like that and you have an elite ruling party that uses dictating (dictatorship) practises.
Of course, I do not want to call it that. But, I do wonder where is the voice of the people. We are very well able to verbalize our opinions. Why isn't this taken into consideration, or acted upon. Are we not in charge of our own future and surroundings.
We used to call our country a Social State. No longer, it is now big business and the elite. Some of our poorer elderly are homeless, or can't afford the healthcare. Sure, there were some abusing the good intentions and benefits in the country. But, now it is almost the opposite. Not necessary in a small country known for its overall wealth. I do not think this is what the majority of us had in mind when going to elect the last few governments.
Democracy in this age could in fact be simplified. Get more and more referendums. Let the people decide. Computers connect most of us. We can use them to vote on a referendum. It is not as costly an undertaking anymore.
My opinion on the EU part of it all is not important here. However, the lack of respect from the politicians towards the people they say to represent is very worrying for all of us.
With all due respect, I hope that some of you read this and change your mind and insist on a referendum. There are not enough of them as it is.
Regards,
Kris Veen
Now that the decision has been made, I feel I must speak up for the sake of democracy.
I am a citizen of the Netherlands, and a proud 'Nee'-voter. I did not believe in the EU Constitution, and as soon as word of this new treaty reared its ugly head I knew it would be little different of its predecessor. Even with the final text still largely shrouded in mystery, it has become clear that this treaty is indeed largely the same as its rejected parent.
To freshen the memory, for those who have forgotten: At a turnout of 62,8%, a rough 62% of the voters said 'No'. This was a nation's vote of no-confidence, and there was absolutely no doubt that our nation did not want this constitution or anything to do with it, and so even Prime Minister Balkenende was forced to admit this on national television, in a state that seemed almost near tears.
His words were: "The Dutch people have spoken tonight. It is a clear result. Naturally I am very disappointed. The voters have given a clear signal that cannot be misunderstood. We must do everything we can to involve citizens in the Europe of the future. The cabinet will engage itself in that."
It is two years later, and Balkenende is still (or rather, once again) our Prime Minister. He, his party, and his cabinet seem to have conveniently forgotten about this statement. As a result, I am forced to consider him a liar.
Worse yet, I consider him a conniving, backstabbing liar. The cabinet was well-aware that the chances of the people voicing a mass 'Nee' in a second referendum are undeniably huge. This man is clearly not a man of his word, and not worthy of any trust. If such a man is at the head of our government, then the conclusion must be, tragic as it is, that the Dutch people can no longer trust their government.
The words must seem awfully strong and passionate, but the government seems to have forgotten the meaning of the word 'democracy'; a nation governed according to the will of its people. In fact, it is starting to reek of dictatorship, and I find the odour particularly unpleasant.
All is not yet lost, as the lower house still has a say in the matter and there are many supporters of 'Nee' present. They might still be able to get a referendum through, and in that I put my hope.
In conclusion, I can only add that Prime Minister Balkenende deserves nothing save my, and the Dutch nation's, heartfelt contempt. He and his cabinet have disregarded the will of their people, the fact that they are supposed to represent a democracy, and in certain cases have gone so far as to break their word. I fear I must speak my personal vote of no-confidence and call this treason, and I think it is time for Balkenende and his cabinet to step down.
Dear Ronald Gr眉nebaum (2): there is in fact a substantial majority everywhere in 'Europe' to halt further power transfers to Brussels and to claw some powers back for the memberstates (which has to date NEVER happened and according to the elites isn't supposed to happen).
Why do you think so many politicians bend over backwards to try and avoid referendums. If all countries had voted on the original EU treaty (ie 'constitution) I would say a lot more member states would have produced a no. And thats why they halted the referendums: so they could keep up the pretense it was only 2 countries.
The 'no' certainties: Netherlands, France, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Britain.
The possibles: Poland, Czech Republic, Sweden, Germany (a poll I saw in Germany at the time saw a majority against power and money transfers to Brussels).
@ A Sinclair (10): but the 'new' treaty does none of the things you mention.
It doesn't make the EU more democratic at all because 1) absence of demos and 2) ministers voting in majority in the Council does not constitute democracy.
Democracy is about people voting. Would you say that if 4 bankrobbers and 3 bank clerks voted 4-3 to see a bank robbed, that the vote was democratic? Its the same with the EU. The 20 net recipients will nearly always vote to continue to demand the net contributors keep paying up.
We did not elect politicians in order to have them give away parliaments powers to Brussels. They have no mandate to do so.
We simply don't want foreign politicians making our laws for us. Period.
Back to intergovernmentalism because nearly every honest poll shows there is no support for supranational power transfers to Brussels.
The EUphiles should realize they are the minority. In almost every country, with an honest referendum their beloved EU would be defeated. And that is why they don't want referendums.
The Dutch governments decision not to hold a referendum is just another indication that large numbers of "EU"-lovers are totally undemocratic. My conversations with "EU"-lovers indicate that almost all of them are anti-democratic. Not only do we not need more integration, we need to reverse the integration we have had before it is too late.
Anti-democratic "EU"-lovers may only be able to hold their house of cards together by fascist means. I believe they will use those means and already have a lot of the infrastructure in place.
The sense of independence is very strong within the hearts and minds of most of the Dutch people. They do NOT want to be ruled by either Germany or France. And I can understand that feeling. I am for a referendum, not only because it is the right thing to do when one is giving away most of it's independence, but also because it was more or less promissed in most of the last election campains. A promise is a promise. If the answer in a referendum about this new treaty would be no, then it would be fair to ask another question: Can The Netherlands be part of the EU? Personally I do not think we can. It would be highly unfair to hold up other members of the EU if they want to continue with the forming of The United States of Europe. But a retreat from the EU would not mean disaster for my beloved country. Over the centuries, we have proven to be higly resiliant, inventive and strong (as a people). We would be, just like other countries in the EU today working with Europe. And still be a nation that can be proud and independent. And we do not have to pay so much money to Brussels anymore. (For instance for a country that managed to get a very large yearly discount in the payment of contribution (Mrs. Thatcher...) when the economy was at an all time low, eventhough that same country is now one of the ritchest in the EU but still keeps that discount... With my apologies for the spelling mistakes, My native language is Dutch you see. Have a nice day.)
I think that a decision to not hold a referendum would be a complete disaster for the popularity of "Europe" here in The Netherlands. If you hold a referendum then at least there's a chance of a "yes". To not hold a referendum would be the first step on the road to an inreversable "no".
Perhaps the pro-EU camp should take a more careful look at article 262 of the EU treaty, although couched in bureaucratese it essentially gives the EU the right to levy taxes so don't be surprised when the treaty is passed that an EU wide income tax is introduced and that is on top of any taxes you already pay.
"how can European countries in the future effectively deal with the new super powers like China and India?"
[26]
They can't, just as EU cannot compete even with US.
But not due to the lack of strong enough integration, but because of dangerously low birth rates (watch out for a significant Muslim population increase within EU) and equally dangerous underfunding of the Old World's scientific and medical research, which has resulted in such leading EU powers as Germany and France losing many of its best scientists, doctors and engineers who emigrate to America where doing cutting-edge research and developing state-of the art technologies is much easier and more rewarding.
Without reversing negative birth rate alone, Europe shall become in a couple of decades a Sharia-based caliphate, just like Russia (whose population is also shrinking fast) will become in 30-40 years Russian Autonomous Republic of China.
To A. Sinclair,
who are you to label anyone who has a different opinion from you petty nationalists. Why do we,the majority I would wager, always need to be re-educated to believe in the correct course by euro-enthusiasts rather than being allowed to think for ourselves.
The "democracy" you talk about does not seem to stretch to giving everyone a vote, does it.
Why not?
PS for practical reasons why a United States of Europe would not benefit all I suggest you look at the history of the USSR or Yugoslavia as examples of federalism forced upon a population.
@ Thor (19): since the EU pretends not to be a superstate (it very much is a supergovernment) referendums can only happen on the national level.
Further integration is neither wanted by the people nor desirable in terms of national democracy.
In fact, all political integration must be undone. The EU must revert back to being the EEC. Economic cooperation only. Period. Until the EUphiles can prove that there is popular support for political integration or federation such things should not be allowed to happen.
Marcel, just wanted to see your point of view on non-economic issues, like Schengen. Should that be undone as well?
Remember the Dutch government has a coalition government. It specifically has banned a referendum because it feels that it would be defeated. The chances of defeat are not as great in the 2nd Chamber. Still coalitians do not win this kind of debate and election.
Defeat!
I really despise people who try and relate the EU to the USSR. Just to give people a brief recollection of what the USSR was all about, repression, totalitarian regime, severe human rights issues, controlled press, no religion, no right to travel, banned native languages. Ukrainians starved because they wouldn't give up their farms to Moscow. Hungarians squashed by tanks because they wouldn't give up their language for Russian.
In addition the countries in the USSR were given no choice in the matter whether they wanted to be in or out. Most the countries in the EU applied and fought their way through an accession process. Some of those former Soviet states really aspire to be in the elite EU, even after years of oppressive rule from Moscow. No matter how I look at it I can't see the simalarities to the EU. When the USSR finally did dissolve in 1991 and all of those countries became independant from Russia, their economies hit rock bottom and are still struggling today more than 17 years later. So I say to those who draw their comparisions to the USSR and demand the EUs breakup, don't forget that bit.
As for the anti democratic element of the EU, why is it when there are EU MEP elections, is the turnout so poor? It's almost like people really are uninterested in an EU democratic process. I do understand the polititians reluctance for a referedum on such matters as the general population (in the UK anyway) are too ill informed to make an educated judgement on something so fundamental. In Holland many people are still swayed by some of the teachings of the late Pim Fortuyn, against anything foreign. That combined with their lack of understanding (and there was people here who voted nee and didn't have a clue about it) that pushed the no vote.
* 24.
* At 04:02 PM on 21 Sep 2007,
* Kevin Haynes wrote:
"Hi Mark,
The Dutch have traditionally been at the centre of European unity, and having largely descended from the Franks, are perhaps the archetypal Europeans. Ever since the Franks inherited Western Europe from the Romans"
Wow, I was told that (some of) the Franks actually came from Holland (the Sallic Hills "Sallische Heuvelrug -which is how the Sallic law of inheritiance gets its name).
Isn't to imply that the Franks "inherited" the Roman empirtre a bit like saying "Ever since the Americans inherited Irag and Afghanistan"? I'm not quite sure which lnheritance laws apply.
Incidentally, I can agree with Mirek that it is not wise to attempt to impose an externally defined identity on people. However, this piece of wisdom does not only apply to the EU -but also to the US and other powers.
Indeed, it might be a good idea if we could admit that the world has become one giant post-colonial and neo-colonial mess -so that we could all sit down and try again in a more sensible and amicable manner. Just because the Romans (and the Franks) did it -doesn't mean that we should continue....
@Ignace (40): preferably, yes Schengen should be undone as well. Why should we be burdened with masses of (phony) asylum seekers (who are not fleeing any persecution) just because Spain or Italy decides to admit 'em all?
A limited Schengen (say, western Europe) could exist.
Let's agree, the majority of us is still quite confused and, honoustly, nobody can oversee the full long-term consequences of a yes or a no vote. Both scenarios make us therefore uncertain ... except of course for those who are convinced and ouspoken NO or YES voters (they do not even need to think or to make any effort to understand the other arguments).
Anyway, I bet that neither of the hard-line YES or NO voters are anyway close to a majority if there would be the possibility to vote "I still want to understand more". Therefore neither of the two can claim to represent the majority of the Dutch people.
I'm sure that the majority of the Dutch people is historically in favour of a consensus based Europe and that all are convinced that it will need time to move us to a stronger Europe and a fair world. But many hate the incompetent way of involving us, the ordinary people, in a fundamental debate. Moreover, the common impression is that Europe is in the first place driven by single national interests (of our own and that of other nations), mistified by untouchable complex crossborder business interests (which generally display little vision and concern with a fair and just world) and of course the hidden agendas of some ogf the bigger nations. The latter find it often difficult to understand, respect and accomodate the positions of the smaller nations.
So dear YES voters, please convince us "the undecided" (I believe we are the majority, we should rule but we definitely want to listen to the minorities!). We are still very confused whether this new treaty will indeed get us to a fair, more democratic and safer world! Be honoust and show us that you are in doubt as well! Dividing us doesn't make the world a better place.
And dear NO voters (at least those who are open to a frank debate and valid arguments), if we agree that European integration and common policies are required, ... as opposed to those who make themselves strong for an inward looking nation ... which, as history shows, is rather a threat than a blessing to the safety and well being of humanity ... , then, how could this EU treaty be improved to pave the way for such noble goals (more than what can be achieved without such treaty).
Again, these questions are of course not simple and this confirms that imposing the treaty is wrong. If the treaty is so important and so different from the preceeding project, let us then understand why it is so different and that its worth voting for.
If over the past two years the Dutch government had indeed been working hard enough on bringing the debate seriously to the people, than the treaty and the referendum would have been a positive outcome of such serious democratic work. We have to agree with those saying that politicians failed to do so ... and this is not so different in France and many other countries (as these were listed in one of the comments above).
There is a report in 鈥楧e Volkskrant鈥 that the Dutch government will even refuse to sign a referendum bill if it is approved by the Dutch Parliament. The politicians of Europe are colluding to impose Constitutional arrangements on 27 countries that reduce democratic checks on their executive power. The peoples of Europe need to rise up and reject what is being imposed on them because if politicians can get it with ignoring the verdict of the people once they can and will do it time and time again.
-------------------------
"Il fallait une r茅volution pour ramener les hommes au sens commun" 鈥 J-J Rousseau
Being Dutch myself I can say with certainty that next time it might be even a stronger disapproval of Europe from the Dutch people. When I got to vote I was supportive of Europe, knowing that the Netherlands did everything to engage in Dutch compliance of not only the European educational system but European constitutional rules and regulations.
The Netherlands is one of the most regulated countries in Europe and regardless of this we have little or no say in Europe. We are treated as international outlaws and are even questioned about our identity or passport, which might be falsified by the very immigrants who swamp our country attempting to look like us.
French and German corporations saturate our country like packs of raviting wolves feeding on the trust funds of hard working and charitable citizens. In most cases those citizens do not even undertake action to improve their say in such corporations, accepting it because of the very heritage that makes them more Dutch than others.
No wonder the Dutch choose to form alliances with countries like Russia and China to work on new technologies and build valuable resources. We are fed up of being the dumping ground of Germany, France and sometimes even the United Kingdom. We do not want to go home and say work was murder but come home to a loving wife and talk about great work and how well they treated us.
ing. E.H.A. van Tetering
Technical Software Engineer
@ Ilah (42):
Actually it was Gorbachev who compared the political structure of the EU to that of the Soviet Union (unelected politbureau, council of ministers -yes the ussr had one too-, relatively powerless duma). And Gorbachev would be the one to know wouldn't he be?
Most countries in the EU (certainly the earlier ones) told their peoples they were joining an economic union. Now it turns out that through historical records we can prove politicians have been lying all along the way (ie they knew all the time that the EEC/EU was most specifically also about political union, and they denied it for years).
Turnout for MEP elections is so poor because many people can see right through a fault. There mere fact that it is elected does not make it democratic. Can it impose a political agenda or form a government? No and no.
And besides, is it democratic if 4 bankrobbers and 3 bank clerks vote 4-3 to have a bankrobbery? Should the clerks then simply go along with the 'democratic' vote?
As for being ill informed, many politicians I have spoken to about this issue seem to be completely ignorant about the real history of the EU. They've never heard of the Davignon report, or don't know Monnet (through Schumann) advocated federalism, or don't understand the principle of engrenage (how the EU seizes a competence from the memberstates). I would say that people like me, who voted no on that basis, are decidedly better informed than your average party politician.
Most people who voted yes in the 2005 referendum also had no clue what they voted for. Had they been asked to surrender yet 61 more competences from national government to Brussels, many of them would not have said yes.
I get really tired of that attitude of some who suggest 'yes' voters all knew everything and 'no' voters like me are all ignorant peons. I dare say, the average no voter is better informed than the other side.
This cannot go on for much longer. Politicians must come out in the clear and admit federalization is on the cards. And let the people vote: do you want your country to join a European federation yes/no. And only if the majority votes yes can a country join.
I voted no during the last referendum. However. Do I want a new referendum? No!
I voted for my government to represent me, and I voted for a party representing my ideas about Europe and internal affairs. I hope that is what my fellow Dutchmen did too. If they did, surely the majority would agree with the decision taken?
In the current climate people let themselves be led by fear (quite obvious if you see the popularity of such politicians as Pim Fortuyn and Rita Verdonk). I'd prefer it if they would just be led by their government or made better decisions when there's national elections.
Let's hope the Dutch again vote No to the re-packaged EU constitution / treaty. Not for the reasons put forward by Tory euroskeptics, but because it is a step too far towards a militarised EU superstate with no real public accountability.
When the Republic of Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty in a democratic referendum in 2002 the Irish peole were made vote again and narrowly accepted an unchanged treaty in a second referendum. Let's hope the Dutch show more backbone and that the EU is forced to accept the Dutch peoples decision - even if, as I hope, it is a No vote.
Ilah says he despises people who compare the EU to the USSR because the later was a represive totalitarian regime.Is that so different from a regime that prosecutes and contributes to the early death a man for that heinous crime of selling a pound of bananas.
Secondly we did not apply to join the EU but the common market, a far different entity, and have had no say since, unlike the Dutch,French,Danish and Irish to name a few.Funny how many of these votes ended in a no, but that would never do would it.
Finally I am not too stupid nor ill informed to make up my own mind. As I said in my initial post not everyone who disagrees with the idea of a grand federalist state is a petty nationalist. Some of us would just like a chance to find out what the majority opinion actually is rather than being told what is best.
Ilah says he despises people who compare the EU to the USSR because the later was a represive totalitarian regime.Is that so different from a regime that prosecutes and contributes to the early death a man for that heinous crime of selling a pound of bananas.
Secondly we did not apply to join the EU but the common market, a far different entity, and have had no say since, unlike the Dutch,French,Danish and Irish to name a few.Funny how many of these votes ended in a no, but that would never do would it.
Finally I am neither too stupid nor ill informed to make up my own mind. As I said in my initial post not everyone who disagrees with the idea of a grand federalist state is a petty nationalist. Some of us would just like a chance to find out what the majority opinion actually is rather than being told what is best.
It really becomes a question of how governments are to do their job - serving the best interests of their country according to the information available - when their voters refuse to accept the solutions proposed.
There was never a majority in the UK in favour of Mrs Thatcher's economic reforms, yet she pushed ahead with them anyway and many people (maybe most?) seem to respect her for it and regard the changes to the country as positive. In fact it is often the exact same people who now demand a referendum on the EU.
Many people are simply against change, any change - Sarkozy now has more of a mandate for reform than Thatcher ever did - we will see how far he gets...
Much of the 'I'm English and proud' and 'let's get out of the EU it's too much trouble' attitudes are fueled by reactions to globalisation and US cutlural dominance, as well as devolution. English people feel threatened in their identity and as usual Europe is the only scapegoat over which they have influence and so they demand even more of a say.
The irony is that a poltical project to bring European countries together peacefully in order to cooperate in the name of prosperity will be scuppered by people's negative view of the economic system that is also supposed to be behind our prosperity.
It's particularly difficult to win these arguments when people are more trusting of commercial, foreign-owned media organisations that serve special interests rather than their own elected representatives.
I'm really not sure what the solution is. The irrationalists may have won...
I have to agree with post #1.
I am from a village in the North of Holland, and one of the major reasons that people decided to vote 'No' is that everything was bundled into a simple Yes/No vote.
Can't the people calling the shots at least give the people the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to be a bit more selective, say multiple votes for different key issues?
There is a lot of good material in the EU constitution / treaty, and it is a shame that all the good stuff has to get thrown out with all the bad.