Two years ago the Dutch voters overwhelmingly (63 percent iirc) rejected the proposed EU constitution, several days after France had done the same. This rejected put the European Union in deep crisis, as a new treaty had to be negotiated. So all the bell and whistles like a European anthem and flag were stripped out, the word constitution was crossed out and replaced by treaty, and some more substantial changes were made (more power to the national parliaments frex) all in order to placate the unruly naysayers. In France, they’re going to hold a new referendum; here the government has just decided not to.
Their reasoning is that legally, the new treaty does not require a referendum (and the highest court has agreed with the government in its official advice about this), while the treaty has changed so substantially that the objections against it two years ago have been overcome. Therefore getting their approval is no longer necessary.
Or might it just be that the government is afraid that a new treaty would also be rejected? Many of the objections of two years ago are still valid, while the skepticism about Europe has only grown. Which is why the government cannot afford to let the population give their approval, as a second no would “make our position in Europe untenable”. It shows how little democracy matters in these grand schemes.
The European Union may have grown from a honestly held ideal of a new Europe without borders or war, but it has grown into a technocratic nightmare whose main function is to make it easier for big business to operate. Through the EU, with its lack of democratic oversight, measures can be taken that would never get through a national parliament. Nothing must derail this project, least at all the voter.