Today, on the first of June, the Dutch citizen is asked to take a position on a legal document comprising more than three hundred pages and three hundred articles that touch upon virtually all aspects of politics. Luuk van der Meer tries to get an overview of all the reasons why the Dutch seem so Euro-sceptic all of a sudden, ranging from an uninspired debate to elitist government attitudes.
Pondering Europe – for the first time
Today, on the first of June, the Dutch citizen is asked to take a position on a legal document comprising more than three hundred pages and three hundred articles that touch upon virtually all aspects of politics. Several things change when the document is accepted, others stay the same, but the present treaties are not very familiar among the public. As it can hardly be expected that everyone reads and understands the treaties, the voter needs advice. However, every expert and opinion-maker takes another topic from the document to pull it to pieces or praise it to the skies. Indeed, organising a referendum on the treaty establishing a European Constitution might seem rather demanding of responsible citizens.
Debate
Contrary to complaints that there was no real debate, I dare say the Constitution was the main political issue in the Netherlands since the discussion on Islamic terrorism. It was present everywhere: on television, radio, the Internet and in the newspapers, at the workplace and in encounters with friends and family. Most people were or still are in doubt about what to vote and quite eager to expand their knowledge. Over all, the Dutch voter did not feel very well informed however. In April, 51% still thought they did not or hardly know what the contents of the Constitution were. In May, this percentage decreased to 33. Most Dutchmen heard much about the treaty, but were not sure about either its relevance or its trustworthiness. Even the summary of the independent referendum-committee was accused of bias and clumsiness. Narrow Proponents and opponents looked at the referendum from different perspectives. While some stressed that you should only vote for or against the contents of the treaty, others tried to broaden the topic. Indeed, it is the first time that the people are asked their consent to at least a part of this politicians’ project. It is to be expected that a rejection of the Constitution means a serious setback for the European project. Moreover, the Constitution includes most agreements of previous European treaties. So the voter is more or less asked to give his blessing to the project a posteriori.
Television
For more than three years, a select company of professionals, politicians and committed citizens have been gathering in conference halls and political cafés to debate the Constitution. However, these were little more than a training ground for politicians and opinion makers before entering the real battlefield: television. The format varied from news programmes through talk shows to game shows. Producers found several ways to fit the complex subject in light-hearted entertainment. Small bits of information were combined with casual interviews and short, fierce debates. The nature of the matter provoked a very eclectic debate. This added to the confusion, as there were many mini-debates, in which most people would not always side with one party. Besides, there were strong contradictions in the information given on the effects of the Constitution on the environment, the economy and the Dutch influence in Europe. The liberal Van Aartsen even went as far as to argue that he would vote for the treaty in order to preserve the Dutch identity.
One-liners
The debaters, most of whom seemed omnipresent on Dutch television over the last few days, tended to repeat themselves, avoid considering each other’s arguments and tell half-lies. Moreover, the politicians who gave a more analytical view of the Constitution received only half the attention as those expressing one-liners like: ‘This Constitution comes from the same people who cheated us with the Euro,’ and ‘In France, it’s the Red Flags of the communists, which we finally got rid of in Eastern Europe, and the racists who have triumphed.’ It was alleged that a vote against amounted to economic crisis, future war and maybe even a new holocaust. The campaign of the government was more directed against voting against than for voting for the Constitution. The government clearly underestimated the public’s lack of confidence in them, as their warnings arguably had a negative effect.
Misleading
While protesting grimly against the budget the government used to defend its proposal, politicians of fringe parties on the edge of the political spectrum received an extraordinary large share of media attention. The popular distrust of the Euro, which is blamed for an assumedly staggering inflation, was one of the weapons of the opponents. Similarly misleading was the suggestion that the Constitution would sanction bullfights (instead of merely excepting it from its jurisdiction), the argument that the Constitution would degrade the Dutch Constitution and other questionable statements. Contrary to France, the imminent negotiations on EU membership of Turkey played only a minor role in the Dutch referendum. A more important argument than these populist insinuations was the feeling that developments in Europe were going too fast. Now the ballot boxes have closed at nine in the evening, it has transpired that all this has led the people in the Netherlands to reject the constitutional treaty.
Effects
Maybe it was good to point out, as the government did, that the referendum would not seal the fate of the government, as dissatisfaction with national policies decreased the popularity of the Constitution. However, a rejection will neither stimulate European integration nor strengthen the government. It rather threatens to lead to even more populism in Dutch politics and result in a more nationalist attitude with regard to the European Union. The positive effect of the referendum was clearly that Dutchmen have discussed Europe massively for the first time. The negative effect is that it is less clear than ever which information on Europe is true and which is mere propaganda .
Luuk van der Meer, Zwolle, the Netherlands