June 1, 2005
Dutch say ‘No’ to EU constitution
Voters in the Netherlands have overwhelmingly rejected the proposed European Union constitution.
Exit polls suggest 63% voted “No” in the referendum. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who urged a “Yes” vote, says he will respect the result.
The BBC’s William Horsley in Brussels says the ballot has probably delivered a death blow to the constitution, at least in its present form.
The Netherlands was, like the recently-voting “Non” France, a founding member of the European Union. The fact that 2 of the 6 founding members of the EU have said “No” in the last few days is, to “Jerusalem-singing” Eurosceptics like myself, delightfully humorous.
Gosh. People reject a half-baked, calcified mockery of constitutional law, and Big Media is genuinely surprised. Again, I find it humorous.
"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter.
A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.].
A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.
If only it was rejected truly because of the contents of the constitution but as it stands it is more because of all the politics surrounding the document than of what it would mean for the Netherlands.
Sad really but the discussions were guided in this direction by the politicians themselves using false arguments both for and against. I doubt a significant percentage of the people voting really know what the consitution is about and what it changes. At least the people I spoke to didn’t.
So whether or not it was truly half-baked and calcified, the results (at least in the Netherlands) say more about the local politicians and feelings about the eu in general than it says anything about the consitution itself.
Anyone interested in actually reading the thing before it’s buried might try here:
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc1_en.htm
I personally don’t think it’s so awful per se, just so vague and fluffy as to be largely pointless. Example, from Title VIII, Article I-57 (The Union and its Neighbors):
“1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.“
Does this actually *mean* anything?
Dear Hugh
I do not live in Holland, but in one of 12 provinces of the Netherlands. referemdum was in the Netherlands and not only in 2 provinces: North and South Holland.
please note that I according to my passport I live in “the Kingdon of the Netherlands” or in short “the Netherlands”.
keep all other references to Holland during sport events I do not watch them, but use the Netherlands in post like this. sadly you are not only one to make this mistake. the bbc and cnn do it too.
e-groetjes uit Nederland
e-greetings from the Netherlands
pheloxi
Just to give my 2 cents: Why did this have to be a referendum in the first place? We knew people were going to vote No, but not because they’re against the document itself (most people who voted had not the faintest clue what they were voting about, for or against) but because they’re against the current government. And since the government is pro-european constitution, that means they should vote against.
What surprises me is not that the media is surprised that people voted against it because the document is ‘a half-baked, calcified mockery of constitutional law’, but that they didn’t see this one coming a mile away simply because the media helped make the current government unliked. Reap, sow, etc.
Instead of trying to clarify why the Dutch voted against, I’ll try and explain why I said ‘Tegen’.
First, I like Europe. I am not against the European Union. I don’t hate Germans, Belgians, French, Turkey, {name country}, … or the English for that matter. I am aware of the lethargic processes involved in Brussels and the alleged corruption of some parliament members.
It’s just that I still don’t have any clue why the hell I should have voted yes. The nay-camp spelled doom as did the yay-camp. Quote: “If you don’t say yes the lights will go out over Europe!” …
I hear everywhere that the discussion was troubled. Non-arguments used. But I say, no one even tried to explain, like I was 12 years old, what this referendum was about. I heard people playing it down: “No it isn’t a constitution. It is about working together in a transparent way in Europe.” So what is it exactly I’m supposed to vote about?
Maybe I was influenced by F.U.D. But I like to present you an age old adagium in the Netherlands: “Nee heb je, ja kan je krijgen.” (You’ve got no, maybe you’ll get yes.)
So IMHO the failure to make it a yes all boils down to make a clear argument FOR the ‘constitution’. I’m not going to say yes because the prime minister says so. (Literally: “I will look like a fool in Europe.” I say: “What’s new?”)
Now, 2 days after, I’m watching the nightly reruns. And I’m getting tired of the politicians *trying* to explain. I’m sick and tired of hearing “we should listen to the public”. No, you should have explained more. And keep it simple (next time).
For me it’s simple. I said no to make them go ‘Back to the drawing boards’!
That said. Could the English media please stop quoting Geert Wilders!!! Just because I said no, doesn’t mean this lunatic has the right to use MY vote to further his goals. As do the rest of the nay-promotors. I’m not against anything, I’m against people telling me to say yes without telling me why (in a simple fashion).
That’s my 2 cents of rant.