European Constitution Referendum in Nederland ?
 

It seems after a 66% "NO" vote in a referendum in June 2005 virtually the same text is now going to be approved by parliament, denying the people a referendum.

That the text is virtually the same can be seen here: http://openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf and here: http://openeurope.org.uk/research/byanyothername.pdf

I think a new referendum should be held in The Netherlands. What do you think ??

Voted of course

The first referendum shouldn't have been held in the first place. The content of the first treaty has been justly maintained, and it is a technical treaty which will only streamline future procedures within the EU and reduce bureaucracy.

The changes made now are only cosmetic, to please those who voted against. My opinion is unchanged.

There are weaknesses in your way of reasoning.
- Regardless of the first referendum should have been held, because it was held and rejected the ones who rejected it have to judge it again.
- If the changes are only cosmetic and if the NO-voters voted NO for that reason then they will vote YES this time, so there is nothing to fear. Only to gain.
- 2 years ago the treaty was approved by CDA, VVD, D66, PvdA and GL parliamentarians, but rejected by their own voters (to reach the 66% for NO). That signal is a strong signal that the parliamentarians mistook the opinion of the people then and there is no reason to think the parliamentarians now know or follow the opinion of their own voters.
- The reasons for the NO-vote 2 years ago were well studied. The majority of the NO-voters voted NO because (Sorry, Dutch) "Een ruime meerderheid van de door De Hond ondervraagden gaf aan dat in hun ogen de Europese Unie over zaken die dicht bij de burgers liggen, minder te zeggen moet krijgen." - a majority voted no because the EU should not have anything to say about matters close to the citizens. Not having a referendum is exactly creating what people spoke out what they did not want.

Which brings the question: why has everyone else (governments, including your own) approved it if a vast majority of the people given a say voted no?

Agree with Matrix on the content of the treaty, and definitely we do not need another referendum.

To put it bluntly, the masses of the people simply does not know enough of the matter to give a well thought out opinion on matters like these, which is exactly why we vote for a government instead of using a "direct democracy" to govern our land where all major decisions would need a referendum. Being a politician isn't a fulltime job for nothing.

The general election is where the people can give their view on how the land is governed, no need (or demand) for additional influence beyond that, imho.

I'm with stupid [:o)]

The people are too dumb to govern themselves. Don't give them that chance. There are very good reasons against the new treaty, but the referendum showed that nobody voted against it because of any of those reasons.

Well, perhaps the SP voters did.

Anyway, I don't feel like having the same discussion again, so I'll just end with another flame: most people who voted against the treaty did it because the EU is to blame that the price of beer has increased.

I voted YES the last time and would do so again. However, the whole document has some serious flaws. As stupid as it may sound, the (for me) most important problem is now solved: We no longer refer to it as a constitution but as a treaty. Purely comsetic? Maybe, but it is, imho, very important. We don't need no EU-constitution and we should not start with naming a treaty a constitution.

The last referendum showed us that a vast majority of people are mentally handicapped. Two months before the referendum, polls showed a strong yes. For reasons that little to do with the EU-treaty, people changed their minds.

First of all this is another nail in the PvdA coffin and I lost count how many more nails are needed.

And a lot of stuff for political spam. Do we need referenda, what kind if Europe do we need. What I hate is that Europe seems to be influencing what I do, eat etc and has no conceivable grip of the overall picture.

[lol]

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

Rik, you really think that when you state this in a debate

that it is than up to the other party to come up with claims to the contrary?

I'm sorry but if you're going to make claims about knowing the one and only truth, you're going to have to back them up with facts. Simple as that.

Btw, you do realize that at most 25% of the people aged 25-65 has had a VWO or better education? And as Swingue states, the treaty revolves about very difficult matters of state and politics which simply is above the level of education (and, at least as crucial, interest) of the "average Jan" in Holland.

Kemal: start a new thread on that topic and keep this thread on-topic.

[confused]

Well, if these are the answers I get on imho very reasonable questions, yeah I'm out of the thread.

This is actually the only valid reason to hold another referendum.
Cause we had some idiot politicians 2 years ago to have a referendum there is a valid point in Kingreno's argument here.

For the rest I stay with my earlier comment.
1. it is way to complex to vote on easily in a referendum
2. it is a conservative tool to prevent change
3. it is going to be hijacked by some parties for other reasons

But this is the very heart of the matter! There can only be a referendum if you trust that the whole population has enough information and knowledge to properly consider their vote. You say they are, most of the rest of us say they're not.

Agreed. I remember talking to Rik in the chat at the time of the last vote and saying that despite promising the UK a referendum the government had chickened out and we weren't going to get one. We won't get one now either. We had a referendum to join the European Economic Communtity (which is all it was then) in the first place, but will get nothing now that it is so much more.

If you want an American's opinion (and even if you don't)

1) They put this to a referendum the first time, there should be a clear reason given if they suddenly don't the second time simply because they didn't get the result they wanted the first time. A number of what turned out to be very bad laws have been passed in the Midwest where I live, because of this type of manuvering (the leaders tend to be much more liberal than their constiuents in SD, MN and WI where I have lived).

2) There needs to be some body with potentially conflicting interests to vote on something of this magnitude in my opinion. In the US we require 3/4 of the states to approve any constitutional ammendment keeping a form of check and balance on national legislators. This review process often exposes weaknesses that can then be corrected, removes conflicts of interest and prevents a single influential person in a body from dominating the procedings, knowing he has the votes to do so. Without a system like state approval, I believe that a referendum may be in order.

Still I'm not Dutch and you have some weird laws and systems over there that I have no intention to learn. May as well knock yourselves out for what I care.

While I think the ´no´ was not a smart vote, I do have my doubts about the proposed text. But that aside:

If you let people vote, and then go behind their back to do the opposite of what they decided, then that is not democratic. Period.

That is not the heart of the matter at all. That was at the heart of the matter 2 years ago when the keeping of the first referendum was discussed. What's at the heart now is that the first referendum gave a clear answer and that is now ignored.
The only way to not have a 2nd referendum is when parliament and government reject the current treaty as well. Since that is what the citizens told them to do so 2 years ago.

My opinion not to hold another referendum is for the same reasons as two years ago. I find the argument that because there was a first referendum you cannot deny the people a 2nd one a very valid one, however. But doesn't change the fact that I am very glad there isn't gonna come another referendum. (I'm very glad that I'm not a politician responsible for this matter. :))

What should happen if the 2nd referendum's vote is also "no"?
The first time there were a zillion different reasons why people voted "no". And all political parties made a different summary out of them. The fact that the treaty has been changed purely cosmetically is IMO the best thing, because it already was a consensus between all different countries within the EU. To demand a more Dutch vision in the treaty is quite selfish. I mean, it's that kind of attitude that makes the European parlamentarians travel between Brussels and Strassbourg all the time! It's that kind of attitude that make the EU pay subsidies to farmers based on reasons that were only valid forty years ago!

Dozens of civil servants and parlamentarians worked on this document, twitched and tweaked it, argued and debated about it, and then it was (or will again be) subject to the people who haven't heard a single argument from those debates and mostly didn't even read the damn thing! But they'll judge based on shallow things like whether the Euro was good for us or not. Christ, even economists haven't figured that out yet.