Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Matrix
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.