Dutch voters deserve a referendum on the new EU Treaty

The Dutch government claims to believe that the new European Reform Treaty, intended to replace the rejected text, does not have 'constitutional' implications. This new treaty, they argue, would represent merely a routine series of amendments and in terms of style, content and magnitude would be completely different from the one against which we successfully campaigned in 2005. For these reasons our government sees no need for a second referendum on the treaty.

This position is based to a large extent on the advice of the Council of State. This most important of our government's advisory bodies has compared the contents of this still not finally determined new treaty with the text of the European Constitution and decided that what we have here is an important shift of emphasis, as well as a change of style and the scrapping of significant symbols such as the European flag and anthem. The fact that these symbols remain in existence does rather undermine this argument, but then no-one in the Dutch 'No' campaign ever had any objection to these things in and of themselves. Similarly, though the important Charter of Fundamental Rights is not integrated into the new treaty, the reference to it which the treaty does contain will have the same legally binding force. In any case, the Council of State's final conclusion was actually that there is little difference between the two treaties. The government was forced to be highly selective in its response to the Council's advice, and in doing so was guilty of disingenuousness.

The British thinktank Open Europe has meticulously compared the provisions of the two treaties and calculated that 96% of the proposals contained in the Constitution recur in the new text. Important veto rights such as those in the areas of justice and home affairs, asylum and migration will be surrendered, a shift of power which should not be underestimated and which must particularly concern smaller member states such as the Netherlands. It is significant that the British government is insisting on being granted an exception in the case of justice and home affairs. In addition, a permanent president and a minister of foreign affairs will be instituted, even if the latter will be known instead as the 'High Representative'.

The leaving intact of these proposals certainly implies the further transfer of sovereignty to the European level, without any satisfactory democratic control being exercised over this. EU treaties have long been far more than ordinary amending agreements, which is why there is a great deal to be said for the proposal recently made by one of our small religious-based parties that a two-thirds majority should be required in parliament before they are approved.

Immediately the present government was established it became clear that a referendum was unlikely to come from that direction. The Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Christian Union, each has objections in principle to a referendum. It is the Labour Party which now finds itself with problems. Not only did it promise a referendum in its election manifesto, but following the agreement on the content of the new treaty early in the summer in Brussels, party chair Jacques Tichelaar announced that he could 'now see no reason why a referendum should not be held.' Only last week MP Paul Kalma, until recently the head of Labour's research department, added his voice to the Labour chorus calling for a referendum. It is hard to see how the party can fail to support a parliamentary initiative to this effect, which has already attracted interest from four small opposition groups from across the political spectrum, including the centre-left D66 and the Green Left, both of which were enthusiastic in their participation in the 'Yes' campaign. Should the centre-right VVD follow the advice of prominent party member and former European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, their members could turn this into an extremely favourable majority. If this were to happen, though the government has the power to refuse to sign the necessary law, its doing so would be almost unprecedented, and certainly seen by the vast majority of the Dutch people as highly undemocratic.

It is simply unbelievable that the people should be given their say in 2005 and then, just two years later, in relation to a treaty that so closely accords with the European Constitution, that they should be denied this opportunity. Should that indeed happen, there will be a danger that the electorate will more than ever turn its back on European politics. In 2005 a solid 60% of the voters participated in the referendum. In the elections for the European Parliament just a year earlier the corresponding figure was a mere 40%, but even this was up from below 30% at the previous poll. It would be irresponsible of the government to forfeit this spectacular growth in involvement in European politics by removing the citizen from the game.

Harry van Bommel, MP Socialist Party of the Netherlands

This article was published in Politeia Newsletter 46 - October 2007