World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

Dutch European Constitution referendum, 2005


The Dutch referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was a consultative referendum that was held on 1 June 2005 to decide if the Netherlands would ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union.

The vote was the first national referendum for over two hundred years, and was not binding on the government, meaning that despite the electorate rejecting the Constitution it could theoretically still be ratified by the States-General. The government did say, however, that it would abide by a decisive result, provided turnout exceeded 30%. Official results say that 61.6% of voters rejected the Constitution, on a turnout of 63.3%.

The question put to voters was:

Bent U voor of tegen instemming door Nederland met het verdrag tot vaststelling van een grondwet voor Europa?
"Are you in favour of or against approval by the Netherlands of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?"

The possible answers were voor (in favour), tegen (against.) At some polling stations in the larger cities it was also possible to cast a blank ballot. The latter did not count for the result, but allowed voters to make an affirmative abstention.


The referendum came just three days after the French referendum on the Constitution resulted in its rejection. Because all EU member states needed to ratify the treaty for it to take effect, some regarded the Dutch referendum as irrelevant. However, Dutch campaigners for a "Yes" vote appealed to the electorate to avoid damaging the Netherlands' standing in Europe in the way that the French result was perceived, in some quarters, to have weakened the position of France. Before the plebiscite, many "No" campaigners expressed the view that French rejection of the treaty would encourage Dutch voters to follow suit. A second "No" vote in a referendum in one of the founding countries of the project of European integration was widely regarded as having the power to "kill off" the treaty. Opinion polls in the days leading up to the referendum gave the "No" campaign a clear lead.

Contents

  • Debate in Parliament 1
  • Campaign 2
  • Results 3
  • Reasons for rejection 4
  • External links and references 5

Debate in Parliament

The bill that led to the referendum was drafted by Members of the Dutch parliament: Farah Karimi (Greenleft), Niesco Dubbelboer (Dutch Labour Party) and Boris van der Ham (Liberal Democrats). The government was not in favor of this bill. During and after the debate about the bill several political parties made clear how they would act with the different possible outcomes of the referendum. While the referendum was officially non-binding most parties were willing to follow the outcome.

Azure, billetty Or a lion with a coronet Or armed and langued Gules holding in his dexter paw a sword Argent hilted Or and in the sinister paw seven arrows Argent pointed and bound together Or. [The seven arrows stand for the seven provinces of the Union of Utrecht.] The shield is crowned with the (Dutch) royal crown and supported by two lions Or armed and langued gules. They stand on a scroll Azure with the text (Or)
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
the Netherlands

Campaign

The governing and major opposition parties, making up 80 percent of the country's members of parliament, all backed the Constitution, along with the major newspapers. The parties of the coalition—Christian Democratic Appeal, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, and Democrats 66—all campaigned for a "Yes" vote, as did the opposition Labour Party and GreenLeft. The Socialist Party, Pim Fortuyn List, Group Wilders, Reformed Political Party and ChristianUnion all campaigned for a "No" vote.

The result is notable, since the largest party to campaign a "No" was the Socialist Party, with 6 percent of the votes during the last elections. The "Yes" campaign was supported by all major parties (most of which were before and directly after the no-vote at loss in the polls).

Opinion polls in the months before the vote tended to show the public split on the issue, with the "No" campaign taking a clear lead as the referendum approached; but as many as half of the electorate admitted to having little or no knowledge of the contents and provisions of the Constitution.

A popular Internet vote test called Referendumwijzer was launched on 21 April, but critics argued that it was biased towards the Constitution, pointing out that even those most strongly against the treaty were receiving results in favour of it because of questions regarding democracy and the environment which were not necessarily relevant to the Constitution. Television broadcasts by the "Yes" campaign provoked controversy for raising the spectre of war and chaos in Europe if the Constitution was rejected. The most emotive of the adverts, which featured emotive images of the Holocaust and Srebrenica Massacre, were never aired by the "Yes" campaign, but received national news coverage and were received very poorly.

A

Results

Official results:
Votes cast 7,705,196 63.3%
Abstentions 4,467,544 36.7%
Electorate 12.172.740 100.0%
Of votes cast:
Votes expressing a view 7,646,415 99.24%
Blank or invalid votes 58,781 0.76%
Total votes 7,705,196 100.0%
Of Yes and No votes:
In favour 2,940,730 38.5%
Against 4,705,685 61.5%
Total 7,646,415 100%

Source: Kiesraad

Only in 26 of the 467 Dutch municipalities there was a majority on the subject. In 446 municipalities, the majority voted against.

Municipalities with the largest share of "No" voters:

Municipalities with the largest share of "Yes" voters:

Reasons for rejection

According to a poll [1] by Maurice de Hond, 30% of the Constitution's opponents used the referendum as an opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, instead of confining their deliberations to the contents of the treaty that was put before them. At the time of the referendum, the Netherlands' centre-right coalition government, led by Jan Peter Balkenende, was suffering a period of unpopularity as it tried to push through cuts in public spending, and there was widespread disillusion with the country's political elite.

Some matters relating to the European Union that motivated the "No" vote were also not strictly connected to the provisions of the Constitution. The debate over the accession of Turkey to the European Union, as well as countries of Eastern Europe, led to fears of an increase in immigration, or an outsourcing of jobs to new member states. Furthermore, the Netherlands had not held a referendum on the euro, and amidst concern that its adoption had led to an increase in the cost of living (combined with Dutch citizens' status as the largest net per capita contributors to the EU), around 30% of the voters took the opportunity to "take revenge" on the political establishment for seeking to advance European integration in a manner that did not engage the public to the extent that it could have done.

A larger group of voters, however, voted "No" for reasons that were connected to the Constitution itself. 48% thought the new Constitution was worse than the existing treaties, and 44% cited the declining influence of the Netherlands in the EU, with the treaty as an important motivation. Linked to this was a fear of being dominated by the powerhouses of the European Union (particularly the United Kingdom, France and Germany). The perception of an aggressive and ruthless style on the part of the "Yes" campaign also put off many. The Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, warned that a rejection would raise the chances of war and stated that "the C in CDA [for 'Christian'] implies that you vote in favour of the constitution." The Minister for Economic Affairs, Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, said that "the lights would go off" in the case of a rejection and that The Netherlands would become "the Switzerland of Europe." The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy withdrew a controversial television broadcast, in which rejection was connected with the Holocaust, the genocide in Srebrenica and the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid. This seriously damaged the "Yes" campaign.

External links and references

  • Official government website for the Constitution (in Dutch)
  • Referendum Commission (in Dutch)
  • Referendumwijzer (the controversial vote test; in Dutch)

News and analysis:

  • VVD Propaganda The (withdrawn) controversial television broadcast from the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy.
  • Dutch say 'devastating no' to EU constitution (2 June 2005). The Guardian.
  • Sage, Adam (2 June 2005). Discontented Dutch seize on chance to deliver protest vote. The Times.
  • Traynor, Ian & Watt, Nicholas (2 June 2005). Crushing defeat leaves EU vision in tatters. The Guardian.
  • Dutch press scolds politicians (2 June 2005). BBC News.
  • Dutch say 'No' to EU constitution (2 June 2005). BBC News.
  • Beunderman, Mark (1 June 2005). Dutch say strong No to EU Constitution. EUobserver.
  • Mulvey, Stephen (1 June 2005). Varied reasons behind Dutch 'No'. BBC News.
  • Parker, George; Bickerton, Ian & Atkins, Ralph (1 June 2005). Europe in turmoil as the Dutch vote No. Financial Times.
  • Dutch vote on Europe constitution (1 June 2005). BBC News.
  • Mahony, Honor (1 June 2005). High turnout for Dutch vote. EUobserver.
  • Simons, Marlise (1 June 2005). Dutch have own reasons to balk. International Herald Tribune.
  • Beunderman, Mark (31 May 2005). Polls point to a strong Dutch No. EUobserver.
  • Bickerton, Ian (31 May 2005). Dutch begin voting on European constitution. Financial Times.
  • Browne, Anthony (31 May 2005). Dutch expected to land final blow. The Times.
  • Mulvey, Stephen (31 May 2005). Dutch argue over EU future. BBC News.
  • Johnson, Brian (30 May 2005) Balkenende: Ignore French EU constitution 'non'. EUpolitix.
  • Mahony, Honor & Beunderman, Mark (30 May 2005). Dutch vote takes on greater significance. EUobserver.
  • Smith, Nicola & Sparks, Justin (29 May 2005) Dispirited Dutch plot revenge with a no vote on Europe. The Times.
  • Morris, Chris (27 May 2005). Dutch doubters defy EU project. BBC News.
  • Johnson, Brian (12 April 2005) Dutch in disarray over EU constitution. EUpolitix.
  • Dutch plan June vote on EU treaty (23 February 2005). BBC News.
  • Clark, Andy (26 October 2004). EU faces Dutch grudge test. BBC News.
  • Nijeboer, Arjen (2005). The Dutch referendum. European Constitutional Law Review.

Further discussion and information:

  • Coverage from prominent weblog A Fistful of Euros with discussion and analysis of the vote.
  • Have Your Say: What will the Dutch EU vote mean? (moderated BBC forum)
  • In pictures: Dutch polling station from BBC News
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.