The thumbs down by Dutch voters to the proposed European constitution is due to the long pursued ideal of a European Union having run into an unexpected roadblock: voters who analyze and exercise their democratic right to say no.
The news has NOT been good for the leaders and political scientists who’ve dreamed of a United Europe. Coming on the heels of France’s nixing of the constitution it’s a brutal double whammy. The AP:
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the European constitution in a referendum Wednesday, exit polls projected, in what could be a knockout blow for the charter roundly defeated just days ago by France.
An exit poll projection broadcast by state-financed NOS television said the referendum failed by a vote of 63 percent to 37 percent. The turnout was 62 percent, exceeding all expectations, the broadcaster said.
And Reuters:
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Dutch voters rejected the European Union constitution on Wednesday, exit polls showed, deepening a crisis in the bloc and possibly dooming the treaty after fellow EU founding member France rejected it on Sunday.
Interview/NSS projected the “No” camp had won 63 percent of votes based on an exit poll to 37 percent for the “Yes”.
The resounding “No” is the latest sign of Dutch anger with the political elite since the 2002 murder of anti-immigration populist Pim Fortuyn, with unease stoked by last year’s killing of a filmmaker critical of Islam.
The rejection of the charter by the Netherlands, like France one of the six countries that founded the bloc in the 1950s, could deliver a fatal blow to the treaty designed to make the EU run better following its enlargement from 15 to 25 states.
It also casts doubt on the EU’s hopes for a more muscular foreign policy and its plans to expand further to the Western Balkans, Turkey and Ukraine, and raises questions about its appetite for economic reform amid mounting global competition.
Although the referendum was consultative, the high turnout and the decisive margin left no room for the Dutch parliament to turn its back on the people’s verdict. The parliament meets Thursday to discuss the results.
The constitution was designed to further unify the 25-nation bloc and give it more clout on the world stage. But the draft document needs approval from all the nations to take effect in late 2006, and the “no” vote in both France and the Netherlands — founding members of the bloc — was a clear message European integration has gone awry.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who campaigned for a “Yes” vote, said he would respect the result.
The vote deals what could be a decisive blow to the constitution, which was also rejected by French voters in a referendum at the weekend.
Mr Balkenende said he was “very disappointed” with the result but he said his government would honour the vote, which was consultative rather than legally binding…..
Mr Balkenende said that despite the result, the ratification process should continue in other countries.
Nine countries have ratified the constitution, but it needs to be approved by the EU’s 25 member states to become law.
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the result of the French and Dutch votes “now raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe”.
All of this suggests that perhaps the “new Europe” is a lot like the “old Europe” — fiercely protective of its invidual identities and autonomies. Note the Washington Post:
THE HAGUE, June 1 — Dutch voters rejected the proposed constitution for the European Union by almost two to one Wednesday, a grave if predicted new setback for a campaign to grant broad, expanded powers to the 25-nation bloc that has grown to rival the United States in economic and political influence.
Jubilant opponents traded cheers and kisses as their 62 percent to 38 percent victory was announced on television Wednesday night, three days after French voters turned down the 200-plus-page document in a similar protest against the burgeoning size and cost of the union and their national government’s domestic policies.
The two defeats left European leaders scrambling for ways to salvage the constitution. It was written in hopes of streamlining decision-making and giving the Brussels-based organization new say in issues as diverse as a common foreign policy and rules for buying vacation homes on the Mediterranean island of Malta.
Each member country must approve the constitution if it is to take effect by late 2006. Unless the French and the Dutch decide to vote again and wind up reversing themselves — events that seem unlikely given wide voting margins against the document — it will not survive in its present form. Still, European leaders said they would press to continue the ratification process in hopes that the rest of the continent will line up in favor.
In an editorial USA Today puts it into perspective. It says, in part:
But instead of the rubber stamp that leaders expected, the two referendums morphed into a popular debate over where Europe is headed. The European Union has been taking in former Soviet satellites at breakneck speed, changing its character. Protesters said Europe’s leaders have lost touch with regular people. Gripes, though, are the specialty of the “Old” Europe rather than that of the new members emerging from a repressive, Soviet-dominated past.
Europe isn’t going to die for want of adopting the 191-page constitution, but it will be weaker and will operate under old rules. For the USA, that’s a mixed outcome. It undermines joint approaches on terrorism and other issues with trans-Atlantic allies. On the other hand, it makes Europe less of a political competitor. The French, in particular, had wanted EU power to be a counterweight to the United States in the world.
Naysayers expressed a range of concerns. French workers feared losing their social safety net. For the Dutch, a chief issue was whether Muslim Turkey should be admitted. But the fears had a common link. Politicians failed to explain clearly how the constitution would benefit average people. They will now have to listen and come up with a Plan B, possibly a streamlined version.
The process forward will be slow, painful and humbling. It is called democracy.
Outlook: the concept isn’t dead. But people aren’t going to just accept it because their leaders tell them accept it. It’ll take a much better “selling” job, with the pitch being what is in the self-interest of EACH country and its citizens as opposed to the overall concept.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.