Dennis
Petri
Director,
Platform for Christian Politics
Don’t
get me wrong. I don’t want to throw the UK out. What I hope is that
after the UK’s departure, the EU may start to disintegrate and we
may get rid altogether of this, in my opinion, totally undesirable
political, economic and monetary union.
As
a Dutch citizen, I consider that BREXIT would not only be best for
the UK, but also for The Netherlands and, as a matter of fact, for
all other countries in Europe.
I
celebrated the Dutch NO in the referendum about the Constitutional
Treaty in 2005. I wasn’t old enough to vote at the time, but I
would certainly have voted NO if I could have. I have always been
sceptical of European integration, especially of political union and
the euro, and I considered the Constitutional Treaty was taking
integration way too far.
This
was, and still is, my opinion. This opinion was shared by 54.68% of
the French and 61.5% of the Dutch.
As
we know, the wish of the majority was not respected.
We
know what happened. The Constitutional Treaty did not disappear.
After
the NO, the Constitutional Treaty was revised by the European
leaders, supposedly to do justice to the NO votes in France and The
Netherlands, but no substantial changes to the treaty were made. Only
its name changed; it was re-baptised as the Lisbon Treaty. The Dutch
government considered that with these changes it wasn’t necessary
to hold another referendum and pushed the treaty through parliament.
The same happened in France.
Let
me repeat myself just in case you didn’t get the point: 1) In a
referendum, a majority of the people said NO to the treaty. 2) The
name of the treaty was changed, but the treaty itself was not
modified. 3) The treaty was adopted by Parliament, completely
disrespecting the majority’s decision.
Do
you think this is normal?
I
was so appalled by this undemocratic ratification procedure of the
Lisbon Treaty that I wrote a letter to the Dutch Prime Minister at
the time, Mr. Jan Peter Balkenende. I wrote that I greatly admired
him and that I had voted for him at the 2006 elections (I was old
enough to vote then), but that I could not understand why he opposed
a new referendum. By doing this, I said, he and his cabinet
disrespected the outcome of the referendum.
After
a month I received a letter back from Mr. Balkenende, in which he
thanked me for writing to him, and explained that he was of the
opinion that a new referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was not necessary
because it was substantially different from the Constitutional
Treaty. Specifically, in the Lisbon Treaty, the constitutional nature
of the Constitutional Treaty had been eliminated.
I
knew this to be a lie. The Lisbon Treaty was not substantially
different from the Constitutional Treaty. Only the name changed.
Don’t
take my word for it. Former French President and President of the
Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted the Constitutional
Treaty, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing himself admitted there was no
substantial difference between the Constitutional Treaty and the
Lisbon Treaty. He publicly declared the following to the European
Parliament: “The difference between the original Constitution and
the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content.
(…) In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the
only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be
found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered
differently and split up between previous treaties.”
So,
Mr. Giscard d’Estaing recognized that the Constitutional Treaty was
not substantially different from the Lisbon Treaty. Mr. Balkenende
knew this, but told us the opposite.
In
his letter to me, Mr. Balkenende also enclosed a copy of the
transcript of the parliamentary debate about the decision not to hold
a new referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In this debate, he said, all
opinions about the matter had been voiced. And that was it.
A
decade later, I still can’t get my head around this. After an open
debate in the Dutch House of Representatives, a majority of 150
Members of Parliament agreed that is was enough to change the name of
the treaty and that the outcome of the referendum could be ignored.
What they really said was, of course, different: they said that they
had listened to the people and that the will of the people had been
taken into account by the amendments to the treaty, which really were
only cosmetic changes. The Senate rubberstamped the vote of the House
of Representatives and none of the High Councils of State complained,
nor did Her Majesty the Queen.
So
much for transparency and accountability. So much for democracy.
I
was very surprised that Mr Balkenende, a Christian-Democrat, did not
honour his party’s name by behaving in such an undemocratic way.
(The smaller conservative Christian parties in The Netherlands also
say that the Christian-Democrats, aren’t behaving in a Christian
way, but that’s a totally different debate.) It’s undemocratic to
first call for a referendum and then to ignore the outcome of this
referendum. No discussion possible.
I
was even more surprised at the weak public debate that was sparked by
this very unorthodox and undemocratic ratification procedure of the
Lisbon Treaty. I expected generalized indignation in the media. Of
course some people did voice their concerns, but I can’t remember
there was a public outrage about this so evidently authoritarian
imposition of a treaty the people had rejected. Overall, most opinion
leaders just seemed so happy that European integration could move
forward.
In
his letter, Mr. Balkenende also emphasized that he was a believer in
representative democracy, and that direct democracy is not really
part of the Dutch constitutional framework. As a political scientist,
I am aware of the debate about the pros and cons of direct democracy,
but I found this argument very strange. This was not about preferring
representative democracy over direct democracy. This was about openly
and wilfully ignoring the will of the people!
In
surprising honesty, Giscard d’Estaing also stated in his address to
the European Parliament: “The proposals in the original
constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply
been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why
this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by
avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.”
Yes,
that’s what he said. Referenda are a threat. That’s the real
reason why the Dutch and French governments never organized a new
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
I
can’t think of any moment in history where this has happened. Even
in the worst dictatorships, it has never happened that the people are
first consulted about a particular measure, and then when they say
NO, the measure is imposed anyway.
But
in the EU this is common practice.
It
happened with the ratification referendum of the Lisbon treaty in
Ireland in 2008. After voting NO, the Irish were bullied into
organizing a new referendum the following year.
It
happened again with the Greek bailout referendum in 2015. Although
the people rejected the measure, it was imposed anyway, and even
under much harsher conditions.
And
it is happening yet again with the referendum about the EU-Ukraine
Association Agreement that was held on April 6th
in The Netherlands. 61% of the people rejected it but the Dutch
government is holding back the execution of the decision of the
people until after the British referendum, notwithstanding Article
15.2 of the Advisory Referendum Act, which says that execution should
happen “as soon as possible.” A parliamentary motion to force the
government to execute the law was rejected by the government parties.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte declared publicly that 95% of the treaty is
about trade, and that by executing the decision made by the people,
this 95% would also be discarded. I don’t get it. The Dutch voters
rejected the treaty, so why is Mr. Rutte implying that 95% can still
come into force?
These
examples just tell you everything about the nature, the
anti-democratic nature, of the EU.
At
any rate, it is fair to say that representative democracy is not
working in European countries. The majority of the population is
opposed to the European project, but somehow the representatives they
elect almost always turn out to be overwhelmingly pro-European.
And
when the people, through referenda, tell their political
representatives to stop European integration, they are ignored. You
can’t tell me this is right.
I
have never voted for the Christian-Democrats again, and have only
voted for (moderately) Eurosceptic parties ever since. I must confess
I also sometimes decided not to vote, because I didn’t see it
making any difference. What’s the point of voting if the outcomes
of referenda are ignored and if the majority of MP’s always turn
out to be incorrigible Europhiles?
At
university, I denounced the undemocratic nature of the European
project everywhere I could. I published opinion articles in
newspapers and on weblogs. I challenged politicians, journalists and
academics. Everywhere, I was ridiculed and I was labelled as an
extremist, a nationalist and a reactionary. I am none of those
things. But I cannot be silent about the unacceptable undemocratic
nature of the EU.
I
wonder whether it’s not really the EU supporters who are
extremists. They are imposing treaties and brushing referenda aside.
I
remember once, Mr. Frans Timmermans, who is now the Dutch European
Commissioner but was then the Dutch Undersecretary of State for
European Affairs, came to my university for a debate. He gave a very
socialist speech about the benefits of the EU to counter global
capitalism and neoliberalism. When given time for questions, I told
him publicly what I thought about the whole European integration
process, and asked him when this madness would stop. He pushed all my
concerns aside and started to point out how good the EU has been for
European peace and prosperity.
That
was in 2007. It’s now 2016, and I don’t see this peace and
prosperity. Looking at Islamic terrorism, an unmanageable refugee
crisis, and the ever-growing contempt for democracy of the EU, it’s
hard to see the peace. And the failing euro, absent economic growth,
rising unemployment and the combined housing, banking and debt
crises, can hardly be considered as prosperity.
In
the meantime, the European institutions continue to behave as
undemocratically as always, and demand more power (and less
accountability) to solve these issues. But the answer to the problems
cannot be more EU. It’s getting rid of the EU altogether. Can’t
anyone see the EU is making things worse?
Don’t
let anyone mislead you about the economic and political benefits of
being part of the EU. The EU is in crisis, the euro is in crisis and
the whole system is falling apart.
There
is perhaps one positive thing about the Lisbon Treaty. It explicitly
includes the possibility for a member state of the EU to leave the
Union. Now the UK has the opportunity to deliver itself from this
paralyzing yoke. The 23rd
of June is truly the single most important event in the political
history of this century. As a Dutchman, I call on all Britons to vote
LEAVE, and contribute to the dismantling of the European project.
