Little or no interest in the contents of the Constitution. Why has the Dutch referendum on the Constitution been neglected in this column (and elsewhere), with the spotlight firmly focused on France? There are many reasons for this. Firstly, it was France that saw a real impassioned and conflicting debate on the texts. Then, rightly or wrongly, most of the commentators and political figures feel that the French verdict will be decisive for the fate of the Constitution, whereas anywhere else, a “no” could be got round, given the right formula. But for my money, the most important thing is that the doubts and gripes of the Dutch citizens don't specifically refer to the Constitution (there's almost no interest in it, according to observers); the climate shows more of a kind of distrust and disgruntlement with the latest progress towards European integration. It's true that this kind of sentiment is not exclusively Dutch; it's maybe the common fate of big ideas that after the initial enthusiasm dies down and the priority objectives are achieved, periods of fatigue or routine replace the idealism.
Monetary stability. But- and in full awareness that there is something insulting in this kind of simplification, because you can't slice up a mindset and take a look at it- I get the feeling that there are four specific factors which typify the situation in the Netherlands. The first relates to the euro. The Dutch have lived for centuries with a cast-iron, stable currency, which has been very wisely managed, and they gave up the florin on the basis of the trust that the same would be true of the euro, with very tight controls on inflation. It turns out that the management of the euro has fulfilled Dutch criteria, but I don't get the impression that the Dutch took kindly to various events surrounding the Stability Pact and pressure brought to bear for a partial change to monetary policy. They wouldn't put up with being dragged willy-nilly into a less rigorous management of the currency than the one they signed up to, and are wary of a number of other euro zone countries.
Free trade. The second element relates to economic change. The geographical situation and the absence of raw material (except natural gas, but for how much longer?) have traditionally made a country of processors and tradesmen of the Dutch, for whom trade freedom is a dogma. The enlargement of the Union, the political aggression of some of the new world-level exporting countries and the (justified) demands of agriculture force Europe to take more precautions, and the Dutch find this hard to swallow. I'm not saying they're right. I remember something that happened a long time ago now, when the Council was discussing the flower import regime; I can assure you that the Dutch were the most protectionist of the lot, because they produce flowers, and they carved out a compromise that allowed imports only as long as they didn't affect Community production. In other words, they defend their interests just as much as any other Member State. But generally speaking, the concept of free trade at world level is written on their DNA.
Budgetary fairness. The third element is their contribution to the Community budget. Per head of population, the Dutch are the largest “net contributors” to Community expenditure. They feel that it's unfair and are disinclined to allow this to continue as it is.
Freedom of opinion and tolerance. The fourth factor is possibly the crux of the matter: this is the impression held by a section of the population that excessive, badly-controlled immigration compromises the culture of freedom of expression and the spirit of tolerance which are so deeply rooted in the country. Despite a few warnings, the other Member States have not really understood the full implications of the murder of a local film-maker by a Dutchman of Moroccan origin. He was stabbed and shot in the street because of opinions he had voiced in a short film. The issue is not whether the images were excessive or showed any particular religion in a bad light, but of noting that someone who was welcomed into the Netherlands and given Dutch nationality could reject and scorn national principles to such an extent that he could stab a fellow Dutchman for this views. This was a huge shock, and its consequences are beyond calculation. The conditions for taking on Dutch nationality will become far more exacting, the integration policy for various immigrants is seen as a failure (as had already happened in Denmark, in the words of one minister) and distrust about any political development in European integration has well and truly set in.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this; in fact, it will improve the situation whilst respecting national identities. But will the Dutch distance themselves from the European Union anyway, as they already have done from Benelux, or will wisdom regain the upper hand? We won't know until 1 June. (F.R.)