On June 1, 2005 the first national referendum in Dutch history will take place. It is a consultation. Both the First and Second Chamber and the government can ignore the outcome in any case. The voters will answer the question: “Are you for or against approval of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?” Will the voter really get a grip on the political reality in Europe by participating in this referendum?
The European constitution
A lot of sense and nonsense about the European constitution already passed the media. I don’t want to bring that all up again. However, I do want to answer a basic question: what is the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, what is the European constitution? The constitution consists of four volumes, two appendices, and 36 protocols: altogether 448 articles. The constitution can be downloaded from Grondweteuropa.nl or ‘can be obtained at your town clerk’s office’.
New?
The constitution is first of all an agglomeration of all existing treaties of the European Union. These are not for discussion. Also the fact that EU legislation will now overrule member states is not new. ‘Brussels’ already has the power to fix the composition of many products, the air and other matters in the Netherlands. Furthermore, a list of ‘fundamental social rights’ is added. Amongst others, this includes the right of access to public service’ and ‘the right of proper administration’. The European constitution will guarantee a clearer division of powers between member states and the EU (including the ‘subsidiarity principle’), more decision on some fields, more powers to the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, the institution of a EU-minister of Foreign Affairs, a permanent president of the European Council, a more compact European Commission and last but not least a clause for withdrawal from the EU. Of course it would be realistic to vote about these new provisions in a referendum, if only people would be aware of their significance.
Summaries
Not everyone takes the time and effort to read the full constitution text. Me neither. The summary of only eighteen pages that the people have recently received in their letterboxes could therefore be a relief. But right down page 2 we read: ‘No rights can be claimed from this summary.’ Luckily there are more summaries, starting with the one from the Task Force Convention at the European Parliament-website. Among other things, it is stated that drafts from the European Council are passed with a qualified majority, if 55% of the member states (with a minimum of fifteen), representing at least 65% of the EU-population (that would now be about 300 million people) vote in favour. Easy, one would think, and indeed more decision. But no, there is more to come (by contrast, the door-to-door-summary stops here): ‘This system will come into force on November 1, 2009. …. The conference [has] decided to accept a revised version of the “Ioannina-compromise” as well.’ A footnote explains the implications of this compromise. Still, the question arises: if one summary adds more ‘buts’ – how much more complicated (and possibly less decisive) will the real constitution be?
Connotations
The first condition for all communication is that both sender and receiver understand each other. In a way, that when the word ‘banana’ is pronounced, they will not only hear vowels and consonants, but they (can) visualise the yellow fruit at the same the time. I learnt this in my first lecture of Introduction to Communication. Looking at the European constitution, we cannot be sure of any real communication. Many voters apparently think about different things when they hear ‘European constitution’: about the accession of Turkey to the EU, about the introduction of the euro (and inflation rates) and about the ‘Bolkestein-directive’ on the liberalisation of services. This can be concluded from French research and recent polls by Maurice de Hond in the Netherlands. None of these cases is related to the European constitution. The Spaniards, who accepted the constitution with an overwhelming majority, by contrast remembered the positive aspects of Europe, like the social funds that yielded them a lot of prosperity. In fact, each member state has its own interpretation: the Poles think of their recent ‘return’ to Europe and the subsidies for their farmers (which are not mentioned in the constitution), Britons think of the conservation of their pound and immigration policy. Etcetera. A referendum about the European constitution may theoretically benefit democracy; in reality voters merely judge nothing but connotations of the EU idea. Maybe the value of the referendum is just its incentive to start a public debate about Europe. This debate has been out of the picture for so many years.
Lottery
Whatever the result of the referendum will be: the government and the parliament will decide. Moreover, the summary of the European constitution is limited. Reading the full text requires an unreasonably high level of knowledge and education. European voters are obviously guided by concerns other than the constitution in their decision-making. Finally one has to bear in mind that the referendum is not about Europe or the European Union. The Netherlands will remain an EU-member anyway. Voting against would put a ‘brake’ on Europe, though no one knows how that would affect European policies. Voting for would be even more advantageous, since the effects hereof are much clearer. Conclusion: the constitution referendum is irrelevant. It is a lottery with extremely insecure stakes and odds. If the French say no a few days earlier, the statement of the Dutch people will matter only very, very little. Why bother?
Alternative
A referendum about withdrawal from the European Union (another referendum) is the remedy against the farce that this constitution referendum in fact is. That would matter. A fair deal of Dutch led by political innovators like Geert Wilders and Michiel Smit has withdrawal in mind anyway. The Netherlands is a founding member of the European Union, since 1958. Most of the ‘costs and profits’ of our membership are known (however, the consequences of withdrawal will naturally be more complicated). For the voter it is easier to judge the EU by its merits than by a voluminous document. Even experts interpret it differently. Or just leave the voter alone.