European Constitution Referendum in Nederland ?

Rik Meleet · 25-09-2007, 18:52

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 ??

Pastorius · 25-09-2007, 18:57

Voted of course

Matrix · 25-09-2007, 19:08

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.

Rik Meleet · 25-09-2007, 19:22

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.

Beorn · 25-09-2007, 19:42

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?

Kemal · 25-09-2007, 19:43

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.

Shabbaman · 25-09-2007, 20:56

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

The first referendum shouldn't have been held in the first place.

I'm with stupid

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.

Stapel · 25-09-2007, 20:59

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.

Beam · 25-09-2007, 23:11

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.

Matrix · 26-09-2007, 00:03

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Beam

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

View Poll Results: European Constitution Referendum in Nederland ?
Yes, a referendum should be held.	3	30.00%
No, a referendum should not be held.	3	30.00%
Damn, I wish I was Dutch so I could vote in this poll.	4	40.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

25-09-2007, 18:52	#1
Rik Meleet Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands. Posts: 2,502	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 ?? __________________ Social life ? Sounds like fun !! Where can I download that ?

25-09-2007, 18:57	#2
Pastorius Custard used tile Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Opening a can Posts: 3,158	Voted of course __________________

25-09-2007, 19:08	#3
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	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. __________________

25-09-2007, 19:42	#5
Beorn Disabled Vet Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: RAWR! Posts: 1,555	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? __________________ Please do not annoy, torment, pester, plague, molest, worry, badger, harry, harrass, heckle, persecute, irk, bullyrag, vex, disquiet, grate, beset, bother, tease, nettle, tantalize or ruffle the animals. San Diego Wild Animal Park

25-09-2007, 19:43	#6
Kemal Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands. Posts: 3,108	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. __________________ <b>\"In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die\" </b>

25-09-2007, 20:59	#8
Stapel Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands. Posts: 3,196	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. __________________ Vrooooooooooommmmmm Stapel doesn't like cricket

25-09-2007, 23:11	#9
Beam c00l b33r Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beat 'm up Scotty!. Lives in the Lands that are Nether. Posts: 5,094	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. __________________ That was a pretty good gamble. -- Scotty, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.5, Episode 14 Linux never looked this good!