The Netherlands was one of the six original founders of the European Union. We, the Dutch, have always been internationally orientated, progressive, tolerant and open, and as a nation and a people, we still are. But our attitude towards the centralistic, expansionist, and undemocratic EU has become increasingly sceptical. For us, the EU no longer represents a dynamic view of the future but – on the contrary – many feel that it has fallen victim to precisely the kind of static, special interests politics that it was meant to transcend. It has turned out to be a 1970s solution for a 1950s problem.
It was hardly surprising, then, that two thirds of the Dutch population said ‘No’ to the proposed European Constitution in 2005. Open borders and the Euro have long lost the support of the majority of the population. And two weeks ago, on 6 April, when another referendum gave Dutch citizens an opportunity to express their views on the EU, an overwhelming majority once again said ‘No’.
The question put before us at this referendum was the intended Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. Forum voor Democratie, the think tank I founded in 2015, was an early supporter of the idea to hold a referendum about this far-reaching association agreement, and one of the organisations that helped collect the necessary number of signatures in the autumn of 2015. In a very short period – just six weeks – we managed to amass 427,000 signatures, almost one and a half times as many as the 300,000 required. It was the first time in the history of the Netherlands that citizens themselves successfully forced the government to hold a referendum.
But our fight for greater input began two years ago — in January 2013, when the David Cameron announced plans to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU. We wanted the same opportunity! In the Netherlands, 40,000 signatures are required if you wish to address parliament and request a change of policy. No one had ever succeeded in collecting that many signatures on an actual petition. However, and to the surprise of many, our request for a new referendum on the EU produced over 65,000 signatures in a very short period of time. There was clearly a groundswell of support for this issue. Alas – and despite this support – our request was rejected by parliament. According to the then Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Frans Timmermans (now Vice President of the European Commission), the main argument against our request was that a new law was in the making, which would give the Dutch people themselves the opportunity to call a referendum. The political establishment did not want to speak on behalf of the citizens; they would in time be able to speak for themselves if they so wished.
On 1 July 2015, the Advisory Referendum Act came into effect, and within weeks, parliament adopted a comprehensive European law approving the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. That agreement had instigated the bloodbath on Maidan Square, the civil war, the complete collapse of the Ukrainian economy, more than 10,000 deaths in the Donbass, two million displaced persons, and the annexation of the Crimea by a Russia that feared further expansion of NATO and the EU. It was a tragic example of the reckless European thirst for expansion and the destructive politics of the EU; and so the perfect occasion for the referendum we were looking for.
In our efforts to collect the requisite 300,000 signatures, we joined forces with the popular weblog GeenStijl, which was able to develop an application for the digital registration of signatures. Although we were extremely active in the organisation of debates and the publication of op-eds, we soon noticed that the traditional Dutch media were not particularly interested in our initiative. It was as if the press were protecting the establishment instead of holding them to account and informing the public. We received daily complaints from our supporters regarding biased reporting in newspapers and television programmes. They wondered why they were hearing so little from people who were critical of the association agreement, and why no one had bothered to question the words of the sitting government of Ukraine.
It must have been a shock for these journalists to realise that in the end, and despite their obvious attempts to ridicule our initiative and focus on marginal phenomena and side issues, nearly half a million people signed our petition. And during the referendum that was held two weeks ago, over 4.1 million people went to the polls, the overwhelming majority of whom (61 per cent) voted against the ratification of the Association Agreement with Ukraine.
In 2005 the people of the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution, but it was adopted anyway – albeit under a different name. The big question now is whether this referendum will be ignored as well. The leaders of the main parties have, in the run up to the referendum, almost all promised to respect the outcome. The leader of the Labour Party said that a ‘no’ vote meant that ‘the agreement could not be ratified’; the leader of the Christian Democrats confirmed that ‘if four million people have turned out to vote, we must follow [them]. You cannot afterwards say that it was all a joke’.
Article 11 of the Referendum Act simply stipulates that ‘if a valid referendum has resulted in a rejection, a legislative proposal be submitted as soon as possible, the sole purpose of which is to rescind the law or to arrange for the law to come into effect anyway.’ The choice therefore, is binary: either listen to the people and stop the ratification of the association agreement; or not listen to them and proceed with ratification despite the outcome of the referendum. There are no other options. Constitutionally, Dutch politicians will therefore have to pick a side – and decide who they want to serve: Brussels, or their own citizens.
But – there’s always a political but. Last Tuesday, it turned out that our elected representatives were not ready for the simple choice the law demanded from them. They voted – astonishingly! – with 75 to 71 votes against a motion that called for the upholding of the law and for the procedure of article 11 to be followed. According to a majority in Dutch parliament, our prime minister Mark Rutte may now ‘negotiate’ with Brussels and with Ukraine. But what is there to negotiate?
It’s an absurd suggestion – an absurd political construction – designed solely to buy time and hope that things will quiet down. As a result, our think tank has started a lawsuit against the Dutch government to demand they comply with the law. As it’s becoming increasingly clear every day, democracy and the European project aren’t compatible. Our political leaders will finally have to make a choice between the two.
Thierry Baudet is an author and journalist, and the founding director of the Forum for Democracy
Comments