Some two weeks ago, the Dutch government decided that holding a second referendum about the new European Union treaty was not needed. Balkenende patiently explained, in his own inimitable style how the criticisms levelled against the original EU constitution had all been answered with this new treaty, that it was no longer a treaty anyway and besides, the Netherlands could not afford a second no. The coalition partners agreed, including the PvdA, the party that had championed the original referendum two years ago, but now glad not to have to deal with another no vote or inclined to fight with their partners over this. After all, the criticisms have been met and the treaty is different from the constitution, right?
Wrong.
A very “helpful” British report on the new treaty was published this week, and it turns out it’s essentially the same as the old constitution. Which means most of the reasons the Dutch government gave for not holding a referendum have fallen by the wayside. The only remaining still valid argument is the one that was the real reason all along: that a second no would “damage the Dutch position in Europe”. In the end, the will of the people can not be allowed to inconvienience the progress of the EU project. A referendum is only useful as long as it will endorse the treaty.
But ignoring the problems with the EU doesn’t mean these will go away. For decades the Dutch have been more or less enthusiastic supporters of greater European unity, when it was all still fairly esoteric and dull, not sharing the hangups the British have about surrendering sovereignity. In the last decade or so however, this support has been draining away, as the result of two developments: the metamorphosis of the EU from a trade organisation into something more like a real state and the enormous enlargement of the EU. The euro hasn’t helped either. It has all happened too soon and too fast for people to be comfortable with.
And because there has never been a real debate about the European Union in the Netherlands, as support for the union has long been a given for all mainstream parties, because succesive governments never sought to stimulate debate other than giving people the vague impression European integration was a good thing, a sort of moral stance rather than a political position and granted, also because most people were more than willing not to care overtly much about the EU, we’re now in the position that we cannot afford any debate anymore, because the EU train has to move on and we have no other alternatives. But public support for it has been lost and is not likely to be soon recovered, as more sovereignity is given up for dubious benefits.
