The president of the European Commission warned a few weeks ago that a “no” vote by the Dutch in the referendum in the Netherlands, officially on the Association Agreement with Ukraine, could open the door to a major continental crisis. The whole affair is, of course, somewhat problematic but Jean-Claude Juncker - who has since said simply that he is saddened by the outcome - had, in this instance, probably allowed his words to outstrip his thoughts. No, the face of the continent will not be dramatically altered by this turn of events, and technical/diplomatic solutions will certainly be brokered in the coming weeks to protect the key components of this, essentially commercial, agreement. In this affair, Putin's Russia will merely have had the confirmation of the European Union's evanescence on the international stage, even when this is reduced to its continental dimension, to its closest edge. As for Poroshenko's Ukraine, it will no doubt be asking itself just how far it can put its trust in this decidedly unpredictable Western partner which is more than ever disunited in its diversity.
No, the real extent of this Dutch fudge will not go beyond the EU itself. This lamentable shoddy political manoeuvring fomented by the most extremist and populist fringes of the Netherlands serves as a reminder that the European project is one of increasing fragility. It shows again that “evil demons are always alert”, as Vaclav Havel said in a speech to the European Parliament. “Emptiness, crumbling of values, fear of freedom, suffering, misery, chaos - that is their favoured territory”, stressed this man, this conscience of Europe who came from the East, stating clearly that, if “the future order” does not come from the European Union, “it could be that it will be established by madmen, fanatics, populists and crowd pleasers of all sorts who are awaiting their turn, determined to impose the worst European traditions, of which, too, there are many, unfortunately”. This message makes sense now that, throughout the EU, nationalistic yearnings are on the rise and, also, the very values on which the EU is supposed to be built are beginning, no matter by how little, to be blunted.
Thus, according to the leader writer in Le Monde, “the threat of a referendum” is becoming “a way for Europhobic parties constantly to put pressure on”. That is true. And it is no less apposite and wise to suggest that it is “urgent to take account of it, lest the EU become ungovernable”. The problem is that it is not just the Eurosceptics who value the weapon of the referendum.
2005. The French and already the Dutch have voted “no” to the draft constitutional treaty. The treaty is, therefore, dead and buried before, soon after, being resurrected as the Lisbon Treaty - contributing not insignificantly to the distrust that “Europe” thereafter engenders in some quarters. Economist and federalist Bernard Barthalay argues that, in the European context, to the culture of the veto has to be opposed one of positive voting. He is correct, except that, in reality, a referendum vote is very much like a variant of the veto cherished by Gaullist France. On 20 February of that year, 2005, 76.6% of those who took part in the referendum in Spain gave their green light to the proposal from the Convention. How, then, could it happen that, as if by some black magic, their view was ignored after the “no” votes delivered by 55% of French voters and 61.5% of Dutch? Is this not a bizarre bonus given to those who, in a national referendum, are less interested in the question put than in the easy opportunity to give the national government a bloody nose and, in this way, affect the legitimacy of a European project that the various countries are doing all they can to exploit for their own benefit? The then French president, Jacques Chirac, promised that the accession of Turkey would necessarily have first to be approved by the French people in a referendum. Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande have been careful not to go back on that promise. National democracy also benefits, or at least appears to, but should national referendums such as these not be seen, above all, as damaging to nascent European democracy?
In reality, national referendums on European issues ought to be banned. When it is a matter of Europe and its future, or projects to be developed within and in the name of the EU, a veto by referendum is nothing more than yet another blocking device for member states to use. On issues such as these, it should, in future, be all those concerned - European citizens (or those in the eurozone) - whose votes are counted, with the majority view carrying the day, as is the case in every one of the world's democracies. And the only national referendums that should be allowed when the issue is one of Europe should be on one single question: do we, the citizens of whatever country, wish to remain within the EU or not? That is the question to which the British will soon give their answer. It is a good thing. Michel Theys