Thanks, so simple yet so sharp an argument :D

This used to be true and used to be a valid argument. However, nowadays in the 21st century, there are way too many well-informed (and usually better-informed than the representatives) educated citizens that this argument is no longer valid.

I usually end a post with IMHO, but this is far beyond MHO and the truth.
Even if there are many people who fit your discription there are too many who don't to generalise the population.


This is the message the politicians said and simply untrue. Have you not read my bolded statement in post #4 ? It said that the majority voted NO because of reasons within the treaty.
For full backup on that statement: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederla...opese_Grondwet

So please, refrain from drogredenen and untruths and state whether you are for or against a repeat referendum when the same referendum got a "NO" response first time.

Thank you.

Those are pretty bold statements to make in any debate or argument, because they carry with them the burden of proof.

So, before you discard the opinions of four of your undoubtedly pretty well educated fellow citizens as "drogredenen and untruths", I'd like to invite you to back up your truth with some solid facts.

Thank you.

That is simply untrue. That is what you read in that statement.

It might be the reason people vote against the treaty, but it has nothing to do with the treaty itself but everything with their unhapiness with politicians.

It's a strange situation. BTW, in Germany people never were allowed to vote for or against our own constitution as the Americans feared that after WWII Germans wouldn't want a democracy (which was probably untrue). Nevertheless he government could have put the constitution up for decision when the reunion took place.
Anyway.

The "constitution" has some flaws, still I think it is better than the situation before. But as each country has something "to pay" (either financially or else), which is pretty normal in a good decision for a lot of different people/countries. But therefore almost every country would have voted "No".

I also think, that people voted "No" not only because of the content of the constitution but also because of not liking the EU very much (which has some good reasons, some of which would have been solved with the new constitution)

But still, I think you are right, Rik, if they put it up for vote at first, they have to follow what people voted and not only follow it if they like the outcome.

There should be no referendum and there should not have been one in the first place!

1. Despite Riks' bold statement that most people voted against for reasons in the treaty that's not true. Most people voted against cause this is the first time they could say something about the European Union, they had no clue about the content. I debated the treaty a lot with friends, coworkers and strangers, general consensus of those debating it was that it was not perfect but better than the status quo. I consider myself pretty educated on the field of Europe and even for me it was difficult to completely comprehend the treaty totally. In no way it is possible to put it in a referendum and make an easy vote.

What really surprises me is that besides most political parties (almost all except the socialist party) a huge group of NGO's were also in favour of the treaty. They were in favour because they were part of the process of drafting it. Of course the treaty could be better but that is what happens when you are with a lot of different countries and opinions you have to compromise.

2. When people we voted for (politicians) and people we support (NGO's) together come with a treaty like this. Why the hell do I have to vote again?

3. Referenda are a conservative political instrument. It is a great way to prevent change cause most people like the status quo. That is why we elect politicians so they can make our lives better.

4. In the end I think the only reason why SP wants a referendum is that then they can drive around in a big tomato shouting NO. They do not have the best interest of NL in mind on this matter.

And the last thing i am going to say on it.
I live in Utrecht now and we are getting a referendum for voting for a mayor. Though both candidates are not raving idiots I have the idea i can choose between light pink and dark pink. If you make me vote in a referendum give me a serious choice.

Of course we need another Referendum. Whether it should have been held in the first place is not an issue. If you ask once and get no you cannot simply not ask the next time.

Kemal: The statement that is bold and needs backing is "The people are too dumb to govern themselves. Don't give them that chance" not "That is untrue".

Shabba: what is in the treaty is not the topic of this "referendum Yes/No" thread. The topic is: "We were asked a question and gave a clear answer. Why should our answer be disregarded 2 years later?". If, as you state, unhappyness with politicians is a main reason the NO-answer was given first time then denying a 2nd referendum is a bad way to restore happyness.

Swingue:
1 Despite me disagreeing with you disagreeing with me, I do agree that the document is badly readable and even worse understandable. All the more reason why it was rejected first time. But frankly the topic here is "We were asked a question and gave a clear answer. Why should our answer be disregarded 2 years later?". And worse: why are we told that the treaty is "fundamentally different" while it certainly isn't different. I quote PvdA Jacques Tichelaar in an interview with the Volkskrant:
Q - Waarom laat de PvdA het volk zich niet uitspreken?

JT - ‘Omdat het niet nodig is. Dit verdrag is fundamenteel anders dan de weggestemde grondwet uit 2005: er komt géén Europese federale superstaat, de nationale parlementen worden sterker, we houden zeggenschap over ons onderwijs en over onze zorg.We hebben het kabinet met een lange boodschappenlijst naar Brussel gestuurd en het is met een mooi resultaat teruggekeerd. Al onze wensen zijn ingewilligd; die van de bevolking ook.’

2 That is a valid question 2 years ago. The fundamental question now is "We were asked a question and gave a clear answer. Why should our answer be disregarded 2 years later?".

3 It is a tool and like all political tools there are advantages and disadvantages.

4 The big tomato part is bullshit. And about best interest of NL; (following you far off topic) I think every political party has in its base the best interest for their vote-base in mind on matters. They are literally representing them. Some parties have a very clear base (boerenpartij, Unie 55+, AOV, PvdD), others have a more general base. Stating that a specific party does not have the best interest of NL in mind is nonsense from 1 side and true from an other side (but that truth goes for all parties). But This topic isn't on partisan politics but on "We were asked a question and gave a clear answer. Why should our answer be disregarded 2 years later?".

P.S. English translation on Jacques Tichelaar (chairman of the labour party in parliament).
Q - Why doesn't the PvdA allow the people to speak ?
JT - because it is unnessecary. This treay is fundamentally different than the constitution in 2005: there will be NO European superstate, national parliaments becoem stronger, we keep power over education and healthcare. We've send the government with a long list to Brussels and it came back with a good result. All our wishes were granted; and the people's wishes as well.

P.P.S. If you want a referendum: http://www.referendumnu.nl/

I forgot, Swingue. Referenda on mayors or small items like "where to build this shoppingmall" are IMVHO superfluous. Referenda on big items like "The Netherlands' place in Europe and the future" are required to have the people's permission.

I say join a militia and revolt. Storm the capital and start a coup d'eta. :D