VIEWS FROM THE CAPITALS

Autumn 2007

by Ruud Koole

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Politicians in the Netherlands are deeply divided over whether to give the voters a direct say over the EU’s Reform Treaty. The majority of Dutch political parties support the reform package hammered out by the European Council in June. Only the radical right-wing Party of Freedom and the far-left socialists oppose it outright. However, ever since Dutch voters said “No” to the European constitution in mid-2005, politicians in the Hague have had to deal with an openly eurosceptic electorate. They fear that putting the latest carefully crafted compromise to the people might yet again blow the EU off-track.

The Dutch government put a great deal of effort into making sure that the rest of the EU took their voters’ objections to the constitution seriously. Advocates of the new treaty argue that it answers Dutch criticism by abandoning the words “constitution” and “law”, along with any mention of an EU flag or anthem. They say more substantive changes reflect the Dutch position too. For example, the treaty would reinforce subsidiarity, with a stronger role for national parliaments and wider discretion for state, regional and local authorities to provide services such as social housing, education and health.

The issue of whether to ask Dutch voters to approve these EU reforms is nevertheless now splitting the governing coalition along party lines. The leading Christian Democrat party, the CDA, says that the amended EU treaty validates the Dutch people’s verdict on the old constitution, so no further referendum is needed. Their position is certain to be backed by the coalition’s third largest party, the CDU. No Dutch politician dares to disagree, however, with the principle of holding another referendum for fear of a backlash among voters. And rank-and-file members of the PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, which won second place in elections last November, want their leaders in the cabinet to stick to election pledges that another referendum must be held on any new EU constitution.

The CDA and PvdA had reached a compromise during negotiations to form a cabinet earlier this year. They agreed that the Council of State – the Raad van State – would be asked to advise whether or not reforms of the European treaties amounted to constitutional change and therefore required a referendum. Whatever the Council’s advice, its view is not legally binding and can therefore be set aside. So the compromise effectively postponed rather than resolved the political decision over a referendum.

If the CDA and CDU majority in the cabinet decides to oppose a referendum, the PvdA could take the issue to parliament - as happened in 2005. This might satisfy party activists but it would also put PvdA ministers into an unenviable position. They would be forced to defend the cabinet’s collective decision – in public at least – while Labour members of parliament were voting in favour of a referendum. Even if the parliamentary vote failed to win majority support in the Senate, the situation would be politically very difficult for the PvdA. And it would clearly put the coalition cabinet under pressure.

This, then, seems to be the price that Dutch politicians will have to pay for taking their eurosceptic voters so seriously. The Reform Treaty has set the Netherlands a political puzzle which may well have wider implications around Europe. Will the treaty be ratified by parliament alone, or will the ball bounce back into the people’s court? These questions may be being asked in The Hague, but the answers will be listened to in capitals across the European Union.