On Friday the Dutch government decided not to hold a referendum on the new EU treaty. The cabinet proposed that the EU’s Reform Treaty will be ratified by the parliament.
"We have opted for a normal ratification procedure," Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende told a press conference after the meeting. "A new referendum is not necessary and not desirable"
Prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende points out that is no longer a discussion about the constitution, but about the Treaty, but at the same time he admits that it also a fear for what the result might be:
"If the Netherlands would vote 'no' again, what would happen?...a situation of new negotiations would not occur just like that. You shouldn't take new negotiations for granted."
But the debate about a new referendum is not over. The opposition parties in the Dutch parliament have said that they will propose an own-initiative bill to organise a referendum.
D66 member of parliament Boris van der Ham told EUobserver "It is not logical to ask people in 2005 – what do you think? – and then not put the changed treaty to them now."
Still the Labour Party holds a key role to create a parliamentary majority for a referendum. Official they have not taken a position on the issue. They will make up their mind in a meeting on Tuesday.
What does the Netherlands government decision signalise? Is it right to have a referendum in 2005, and not now concerning the new Reform Treaty? What does this decision mean for the population of the Netherlands?
Article from the
EUobersver.com(Ragnhild E. Lea)
9 comments:
Well in this case I agree with the Prime minister and disagree with D66' van der Ham. I think it is not a good idea to ask the voters for their opinion because last time the discussion was mainly about subjects that were not in the consitution at all.
Second, I agree with the Raad van Sate to advise the Dutch government to deny the referendum simply because it has no constitutional character en therefore the parliament has enough democratic mandate to decide on their own.
Peter
I think it is the right decision of the Dutch goverment to ratify the treaty without consulting the Dutch voters.
In my opinion, the Dutch have shown with their 'NO' a few years ago that they are no suitable to judge the value of the EU concerning The Netherlands.
The Dutch have to thank a lot of their prosperity to the EU. But the Dutch are since the murder on the politician Pim Fortuyn confused about almost anything. Well, if it comes to making decisions concerning politics.
More and more voters feels sympathy for the extreme political parties in this country, whether it is right- or leftwing. These parties, lijke the Socialist Party and the Party for Freedom are opposing a integrated Europe.
In this climate The Netherlands could exclude itself from the EU. In an ever globalizing world, that would be catastrophical for such a small country like The Netherlands.
So the Dutch goverment is finally doing where we pay them for: Making wise but impopular decisions. In the end we will thank Balkenende for finally taking some responsibility.
I agree with you that sometimes the government knows better what is good for its citizens.
But don't you think it's also a bit dangerous not to ask the people?
Won't it make the voters even more opposed to the EU?
If the voters are not asked, they could get the feeling that being a part of the EU means accepting decisions which are made over the voters' heads.
For me it does not seem very logical asking the people in 2005 for their opinion, and not regarding the new treaty. Especially since the treaty looks much like the old and rejected constitution. Over 90% of the published material is identical with the constitution text.
The new reform treaty will be so full of juridical formulations that most people will have problem understanding the content. Even people working within the EU have claimed that the treaty with its EU-language will be hard to understand than by other than the experts. That might work out well, when the intention not is to stimulate democratic processes, but to sell a product for something else than it is.
Can I be that what the EU fears the most is a democratic process, like the ones we saw in both the Netherlands and in France? I think that more than anything EU would like to steer clear of debates like the ones we saw in France and the Netherlands in 2005. Debates on television, info-campaigns from both sides, the perfect picture of a democracy functioning might be too dangerous for the EU. There is a possibility that they end up with the “wrong result”.
Is it right in a democracy to ask the people ones, but not when the government suddenly is afraid that people’s opinion might not be in their favour?
And as Sabine points out, is it dangerous not to ask the people? In a time where many feel that the gap between the people and the authorities grows bigger, should we take away the peoples possibility to give their opinion?
the last comment was by Ragnhild..
I would be very worried, if I had a parliament first thinking that they have to ask the people of The Netherlands, and just because they have voted NO once, they will not be asked the second time….
I think that would trigger an election for the Danish Parliament if it happened there (and we have had quite many referendums about the EU until now).
Mikkel
Regardless of the legality or constitutionality of a second referendum, (which I know next to nothing when speaking of Dutch laws) the Dutch government is sending a clear message to its constituents that it is not interested in the results. In a country where public opinion seems to be shying away from the EU and other governmental policies, denying a second referendum will only deepen the divide.
Although the treaty may be pushed through more easily, the Dutch governemnt may have a much harder battle at home.
Kurt
On one hand yes, it is incorrect of the parliament to not let the people vote. On the other hand, are the people capable of seeing the importance of the Treaty in the long run? Most of the Dutch or French have actually voted against the policies of their governments, not the constitution itself. Only a rare citizen of those countries really knows what it really means. Such a decision is rather a game of public relations, not a real public decision. So maybe first the government should make sure that the citizens know what the treaty is all about? A well planned information campaign might be a good idea.
Post a Comment