We the people: the Netherlands in Europe

After the Dutch had rejected the European Constitution in the referendum of June 1, 2005, the government was at a loss how to continue. Should the European integration process be stopped, or even reverted? Or was the European Union rather in need of accelerated reform? There was a strong sense that the political elite had lost touch with the population. But should they have listened better, or should they have paid more attention to explaining the Constitution, to what might have been termed propaganda in more innocent times? Both the Dutch government and the Dutch quality newspaper NRC Handelsblad decided to try and involve the Dutch population in a discussion on the future of the European Union through the Internet.

The Netherlands in Europe

On www.nederlandineuropa.nl, the Dutch government conducted an opinion poll on various European issues. More than a hundred thousand people filled in the questionnaire, which consisted of closed, multiple choice questions such as: What issues should the European Union be involved in? To what extent should the European Union be enlarged? What is the desired speed and direction of the European integration process? And how well are you informed about the functioning of the European Union? This quantitative research was complemented with qualitative research on focus groups.

Results

What do the results show? They show that the Dutch support their membership of the European Union. They show that the Dutch have serious reservations about further enlarging the European Union. They show that the Dutch have trouble keeping up with the speed in which the European Union is changing. They show that the Dutch are convinced that it is about time for the European agreements to be revised.

Vigorous action

The response of the Dutch government to these results can hardly be called a sample of vigorous action. They decided to postpone the decision.

We the people

On http://wethepeople.nrc.nl/node, the Dutch quality newspaper NRC Handelsblad hosted an interactive discussion on the future of Europe. Visitors to the site were encouraged to indicate whether the European Constitution should be implemented, abandoned or rewritten. Using the interactive methodology of Wikipedia (see www.wikipedia.org), the participants developed a scenario for each of the options. Three of these participants - Sven Huynink, Hans Roodenburg and Michael Schnackers – made a summary of the results.

Implement the Constitution

Twelve percent of the participants want the European Constitution to be implemented as it is, perhaps with some cosmetic changes. They tend to agree that many voters rejected the Constitution for reasons that had little to do with it, such as their dissatisfaction with the Euro, the unpopularity of the Dutch government, or their conviction that Turkey should not join the European Union. The proponents of the Constitution also tend to agree that the document is to complex for a referendum. They consider the Constitution a more or less satisfactory compromise that is important for improving cooperation within a European Union of twenty-five and soon twenty-seven member states. The necessary support among the population should be ensured through positive media exposure and education.

Forget the Constitution

Thirteen percent of the participants want the European Constitution to be abandoned. Internally, this group is sharply divided however. A large minority of eurosceptics believe the Netherlands should cling to their right of veto wherever and whenever they can. A small majority of federalists believe instead that the transfer of sovereignty to Brussels should be continued, without formally implementing the Constitution, using what might be termed ‘salami tactics’, that is by abolishing national rights of veto one at a time.

Rewrite the Constitution

Seventy-five percent of the participants want the constitution to be rewritten. There is hardly any consensus, however, about the way this should be done. The word ‘rewrite’ seems to have functioned as a red rag for any bull with a message. In view of this large majority of dissenting views, it is no wonder that the Dutch government opted for postponing the decision-making. If there is any common ground in the frustrations and ideals vented by proponents of rewriting the Constitution, it can be found in the following quote. ‘A constitution should not only be supported by a majority, or by a two-thirds majority,’ someone wrote on the site. ‘It should also exude the spirit of the population. It is this spirit that is still lacking.’

Krijn Peter Hesselink, Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, Amsterdam

This article was published in Politeia Newsletter 43 - October 2006