Dutch Voters Reject EU Constitution

[johnny861]

(AP) AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution Wednesday, delivering what could be a knockout blow for the charter roundly defeated just days ago by France.

Less than an hour after the polls closed, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende conceded defeat in his campaign to ratify the constitution and said the government would respect the results of the referendum.

"Naturally, I'm very disappointed," he said in a televised statement.

The state broadcaster NOS said that with nearly three-quarters of the results counted, the constitution was losing by a vote of 62 percent to 39 percent, an even worse defeat than the 55 percent "no" vote in France's referendum Sunday.

Turnout was 62 percent, far exceeding even the most optimistic expectations and a reflection of the heated debate in recent days over an issue that has polarized Europeans. Dutch liberals worried a more united EU could weaken liberal social policies, while conservatives feared losing control of immigration.

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.

"We must acknowledge that many Europeans doubt that Europe is able to answer the urgent questions of the moment," said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, leader of the EU's richest nation and a strong proponent of the charter. "The crisis surrounding the ratification of the European constitution must not become Europe's general crisis."

French President Jacques Chirac, whose support for the constitution was repudiated by his people, said "shows strong expectations, questions and concerns about the development of the European project."

Asked about the vote, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the constitution was a matter for the Europeans.

"The United States is committed to a Europe that is united and strong, and one that works in partnership with us to address our common challenges. We've done that in the past, and we want to do that as we move forward in the future," McClellan said.

At EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso urged member governments not to make any hasty judgments about the ratification process and wait for the bloc's mid-June summit to assess the constitution's situation.

"We have a serious problem, but we must continue our work," Barroso said.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said EU leaders needed to analyze what went wrong, but said they should press on. "This is not the end of the process for the constitution and not at all the end of European integration," he said.

Early in the day, Balkenende had said he was optimistic the Dutch would defy the pollsters and vote on the merits of the constitution rather than their general feeling of malaise.

"The question is: Do we want to have progress today or do we choose a standstill, and for me the choice is obvious," he said.

But voters marking paper ballots with red pencils or pushing electronic buttons clearly had a different view.

At an Amsterdam school, where about a dozen people waited to vote, a reporter had difficulty finding anyone in favor of the constitution. One said the charter would bolster Europe: "I think it's a good thing if there's a strong Europe," said Jaena Padberg. "It's good that our rights will be secured."

Some voters said that they were undecided up to the last moment and that it was one of the toughest choices they had faced in a polling booth.

"I can't decide because I don't feel I have enough information," said waitress Flora de Groot, who was determined to vote anyway. "At first I thought, yes, definitely. But now, because what I've heard from other people, I'm leaning toward no."

Opponents said they feared the Netherlands, a nation of 16 million people, would be overwhelmed by a European superstate even though the Dutch pay more per capita than any other country into the collective EU kitty.

Nicolas Ilaria, an immigrant from Suriname, said he was voting no. "In principle, I'm against bureaucracy and I don't believe everything is working well now," he said as he read a newspaper at an Amsterdam cafe.

Like many others, Ilaria voiced an underlying mistrust of Dutch politicians. "The government is not telling the truth about what is in the treaty," he said.

Others were concerned a strengthened Europe could force the liberal Dutch to scrap policies such as tolerating marijuana use, prostitution and euthanasia. Some felt cheated by price increases after they traded in their guilders for the EU's common currency, the euro, in 2002. Conservatives worried that the EU would take over control of immigration policies.

"Things are going too fast," said Maarten Pijnenburg, in the "no" camp. "There's not enough control over the power of European politicians" under the new constitution.

The Dutch vote was not expected to have the same dramatic result for domestic politicians as France's referendum _ a loss that resulted in Jean-Pierre Raffarin's resignation as prime minister.

Balkenende said before the vote that there would be no political resignations, no matter what the vote.

[Adam D]

I'm not surprised...the constitution was a complete disaster. It was compromise gone completely arwy. Rather than coming to an agreement, the framers just moderated most of the key issues and stuck them together to appease everybody. Conservatives were mad about the low immigration control, the Left mad about the low workers rights and social rights. The only people who would have really won would be the business class that would benefit from an influx of cheap labor (low immigration control) and weakened labor rights. There is really no incentive for the majority to support it.

It also illustrates a real crisis for the EU. Most of the EU moves have been rather authoritarian, and people in Europe clearly don't like that, even if they do support the EU in principle. Moreover, Europe is slowly breaking down the nation-state system. Regional and ethnic autonomy is growing, and people are reidentifying themselves by ethnicity and regionalism over state citizenship. Since many of these units cross state boundaries (e.g. Basque) it's going to require either redrawing or dissolving the state borders. In such a case, Europe will either see a very devistating period of mass ethinic conflict, or the need for a greater union like the EU will be necessary to stymie conflict.

[zerojunkie]

That might be, I wouldn't think they're going to be redrawing or dissolving their national borders anytime soon though. I'd liken it more to the States in the US with more state rights. =D

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

That might be, I wouldn't think they're going to be redrawing or dissolving their national borders anytime soon though. I'd liken it more to the States in the US with more state rights. =D

Take a look at the UK.

[tricky]

spot on adam.

netherlands and the muslims is a key example.

Technical observations aside, I am stuck on the fact that the high turnout/decisive margin forced the Dutch parliament to examine and take into consideration the people's verdict. I wish it mattered how we voted in this country.

[bfp]

The huge rejection in France voted no for a number of reasons. What I gathered from the rejection of the EU is that, first, it immediately follows the logic of liberal/leftist ideology, as pointed out by an ordinary citizen when called on by Mr Chirac at a gathering in France just before the election. Second, is that it would sway from the checks and balances of a democracy by putting power into the hands of a few elites, centralized in Brussels, with a President and a PM ruling the entire group of nation-states within the EU. That reason alone seemed to have scared the ordinary populist into voting No. Third is Turkey's admittance into the EU. A huge majority of the right voted No for this very reason.

In the end the power of the people rejected this referendum en masse, in contrast to the numbers of every other election. The people are indeed saying no, but the beurocrats just will not take no for an answer. They're still debating on how they can update the EU model to garner more support, if any. For example, President Juncker stated with contempt to the average voter, "If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said no, would have to ask themselves the question again". He even toured to promote a re-vote for any country that rejected the EU Constitution. In their world, the masses that vote 'No' are obviously too stupid to understand how wonderful this new Constitution is, and it's their duty to spoon-feed their agenda down their throats.

An AP/Yahoo article just the other day suggested that PM Jan Peter Balkenende's party stated last Monday it would only accept a 'No' verdict only if turnout reaches at least 30 percent and if 55 percent of those who vote reject the EU charter. In other words, a yes vote needed 45 percent, no matter the turnout. A no vote needed 55 percent, with 'at least' 30 percent turnout.

How very democratic!