Brussels, 02/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - Addressing reporters in Brussels late on 1 June after the Dutch referendum on the European Constitution, the President of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the Netherlands had voted and had voted 'No', after France, but not like France. The final result will not be published until 6 June because postal votes have not yet been recorded, but the virtually complete results published by ANP suggest 61.6% voted 'No' and 38.4% 'Yes' with a 62.8% turnout. (The turnout for the European elections of 2004 was 39%.) This was a consultative referendum, but Dutch prime minister, Balkenende, said he would take account of it if more than 30% of voters turned out. As they had done after the French referendum, the President of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, and the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, published a common statement after the Dutch 'No' vote (see below).
Flanked by Josep Borrell and Jose Manuel Barroso on Wednesday evening in the European Commission's press room, Jean-Claude Juncker said that he would be making the most of the European Council of 16/17 June. Luxembourg's prime minister had travelled to Brussels, as he had done on the evening of the French referendum on 29 May that ended in the first 'No' vote to the Constitution). Asked about the referendum to be held in Luxembourg on 10 July, he said he hoped people would understand that he would be in Luxembourg that day. Ladies and Gentlemen, Juncker told reporters, here we are again. The Netherlands have voted and the Netherlands have voted 'No'. The Netherlands voted 'No' after France but not like France. The issues and arguments raised in the campaigns in the Netherlands were not the same as those raised in the French debate. This evening, following the French debate and the Dutch debate, the sum of contradictory arguments which enabled the 'No' vote to win is very impressive. The arguments used in France by people voting 'No' were contradictory, but in addition to that already considerable range of contradictory reasons, there was now the addition of another list of no less contradictory arguments. We have to observe tonight that people do not dream of Europe any more, he said, but even if they were to still dream of Europe, surely there were other aspects to the explanation of how the 'No' vote won, without which France and the Netherlands might have voted yes. People don't like Europe the way it is and consequently people rejected the Europe proposed by the Constitutional Treaty. He said he remained of the opinion all the same that the ratification process had to continue in other countries. In countries that have not yet voted, he said, people have the right to express their views and parliaments have the right to express themselves and publish their opinions. The debate must continue because we have seen that there was debate in France and the Netherlands. He said that he and others wanted other countries to have the possibility of joining the same debate with the same intensity on the same issues, believing that the ratification process had to continue because Declaration No. 30 accompanying the draft Constitutional Treaty, foresees the outcome the European Council could give to the situation that has presented itself twice. Juncker said that on 16/17 June, as he had already announced after the French referendum, he would be referring the matter to the European Council, which would make a collective analysis of the situation in Europe and Juncker would unveil proposals to his colleagues at the Council which, if everyone agrees, should allow the European Council to prove to the world outside that Europe still works, that Europe is moving on and that Europe knows how to take decisions.
Fear was stronger than dreams, said Josep Borrell at the press conference. He said everyone had to be given the option of stating their views on the European Constitution because despite the scale of the 'No' vote in France and the Netherlands, other people had to be given a chance. Jose Manuel Barroso said clarification was needed at the European Council and no national initiatives should be taken before the Summit. He said the Commission was determined to pursue its programme, wanting Europe to function. He said they had to demonstrate to citizens that Europe worked, adding that Europe wasn't the problem but rather the solution to Europeans' problems.
On the aftermath of the two referendums, Jean-Claude Juncker said that doubts were settling in outside Europe where people were asking what direction Europe would move in and this diminished Europe's impact in the world. After joking that luckily there are only ten referendums on the Constitution, he said that the holding of referendums on such issues had become more pressing.
As these two consultations in France and the Netherlands show that “people are debating Europe” and will vote. Mr Juncker said that, “the participation in the Netherlands was extraordinarily high and even if I don't like the result, I would like turnout to be high elsewhe too”. But this means that it is necessary to explain “Europe as it is” given that in fact is on this that they people voted. Juncker said that they had to be told, for example, “that two weeks of war cost as much as ten years of the Union budget”, that the cost of enlargement was lower than no enlarging and describe what the economic situation in Europe (“which is not splendid, certainly”) would be without enlargement. Juncker said that they wanted to defend Europe and would do so. He came out fighting despite being shaken by this second no-vote.
“Burning obligation” making the financial perspectives works
Asked about the chances of getting an agreement on the financial perspectives for 2007-13, Juncker pointed out that since last Monday he had been receiving a continual stream of his counterparts visiting Senningen Castle for consultations on this subject. He exclaimed that, “Would I do this for the pleasure if I did not feel a burning obligation to reach an agreement?”. In this connection Mr Barroso said that “an agreement on the financial perspectives is even more important now. We have to call on the sense of responsibility of Heads of State and Governments”. Jean-Claude Juncker continued consultations on Thursday at the pre-summit, receiving Prime Ministers from Ireland, Bertie Ahern, from Poland Markek Belka and Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas from Lithuania. On Thursday, Mr Juncker met Chancellor Schröder in Luxembourg for “an exchange of views on the political situation in Europe” following the results of the French and Dutch referendums (the meeting was originally planned for 10 June).
The complete draft of the declaration by Jean-Claude Juncker, Josep Borrell and José Manuel Barroso is as follows, “Dutch citizens, like French voters, have chosen to say no to ratification of the Constitutional Treaty. This is a choice that we'll respect. The result of the democratic election in the Netherlands, obtained after a rich and intense debate, also deserves a detailed analysis, which will need sufficient time. We remain convinced that the Constitution makes the European Union more democratic, more efficient and stronger and that all Member States should be able to have a voice on the draft Constitutional Treaty. The fourteen Member States which have still not had the chance to complete their ratification processes are not facing a situation where although nine countries have ratified it, two have rejected it. For this reason, the presidency has decided that the European Council on 16-17 June could provide a useful opportunity to carry out a collective and detailed analysis of the situation. Moreover, we have understood the message sent out by French and Dutch citizens about the European project and we are paying attention to it. The European institutions will be listening to what European citizens find important and are keen on providing the appropriate responses. We are confident that we will discover together, national governments, European institutions, political parties, social partners, civil society and in a partnership will find the means to push the European project forward, based on broad consensus regarding its identity, objectives and means. As Europe continues and its institutions will continue to fully functions”.
Dutch government withdraws text calling on Parliament's ratification
Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende pointed out, “I am naturally very disappointed…the voters have give a clear message and this result has to be respected”. The draft law calling on Parliament to ratify the Constitutional treaty will therefore be withdrawn (even if the referendum is only consultative). Nonetheless, Mr Balkenende explained that the ratification process had to continue so that they knew the positions of each country. He also said that it was worrying that the Netherlands, “one of the founding member, which usually supported new developments, had launched a signal indicating that they wanted a pause”. The Dutch parliament will discuss the follow up to this vote on Thursday with the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister. The Dutch no-vote is not expected to lead to the resignation of the Balkenende government, all the more so given that the main opposition parties supported the yes-vote have not called for such a resignation.
This no-vote after the vote in France poses some serious problems for the future of the EU, explained the UK foreign affairs minister, Jack Straw, who will be explaining on Monday to the House of Commons how the British government expected to react if the British referendum (in principle planned at the beginning of 2006) takes place or not. In a press statement, Straw explained that he and the Prime Minister had clearly affirmed for a long time that this constitutional treaty was a good thing for Britain and for the European Union.
Call for ratification and reflection to continue on Europe's future
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder agrees with Mr Juncker and others and affirms in a press statement that the ratification process had to continue, “Firstly out of respect for the nine countries that have ratified it and for the other Member States that still have to ratify it. Each Member States has the right and the duty to make its own choice. Schröder thinks that this crisis “should not become a general crisis in Europe”.
We have to have clear knowledge of the EU's aims and principles, said Schroder, adding that the EU is the foundation of peace, freedom and prosperity in Europe. Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt said it would not be right with regard to the other Member States to halt the process. At the 16/17 June European Council, he said there would have to be an in-depth discussion on various important issues like the Financial Perspectives and the EU's economic growth and employment policies. Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that while the very striking result of the Dutch referendum had to be taken very seriously, the fairest thing would be for all Member States to have the possibility of giving their views on the Treaty. Some would say 'Yes' and others 'No', he said, adding that the politicians would have to go round the table to find out the views of each of the 25 countries. The precondition for organising a referendum in Denmark (foreseen for 27 September) is of course knowing exactly what you're voting on, which is why the European Summit has to take a very clear decision - we'll be voting on the Treaty, no more and no less, said Rasmussen. Deputy Polish foreign minister Jan Truszczynski said the situation had got even worse and had become even more difficult but one should not consider it lost. It is not yet the last nail in the coffin of the Constitution, he said. The President of the Polish lower chamber, former foreign minister Wlodzimierz regretted the rise in nationalist instincts in Europe, saying the French had voted against their President and against Polish plumbers, while the Dutch had voted against immigrants and against supposed restrictions on their own particular freedoms. President Kwasniewski said he would await indications from the European Council before taking a decision on ratification of the Constitution Treaty. (The Polish government had announced a referendum in the autumn of this year, but had not set a date. The latest opinion polls before the French and Dutch referendums showed almost 55% of Polls favoured the Constitution with 15% opposing it.) In Italy, deputy prime minister (without portfolio) Giulio Tremonti was highly pessimistic about the possibility of relaunching the Constitution. On television, he said that in the form it had been unveiled and managed, the Constitution was over. After popular votes like in France and the Netherlands, he said, the process is over. I cannot see any alternative, whether technically or politically, he added. President Chirac said the Dutch 'Nee' is a translation of strong expectations, questions and concerns about the development of the European project. In Ireland, Bertie Ahern's government is continuing with its plans to hold a referendum on the Constitution. An Irish government press release indicates that preparations are going ahead although the situation is very complicated now. The Irish government commented that it is important for everyone to think carefully, which is convinced that the European Constitution is in Ireland's interests and the interests of the EU as a whole. The Spanish government is prepared to play an active role in seeking solutions, said a spokesperson for the Spanish foreign ministry.
MEPs call for 'pause' in ratification process (and enlargement of the EU) - Watson calls for Super Poll in Autumn 2007 - Jo Leinen calls for redefinition of 'European dream'
At the European Parliament, the second 'No' vote resulted in some German MEPs calling for a 'pause' in enlargement. Hans-Gert Pottering, President of the EPP-ED group, commented in a press release that 'defining the geographical borders of Europe was also important in this context, so that European identity should be protected, along with the feeling of belonging together as Europeans.' The upcoming European Council 'should give a clear signal as son as at their next summit, on June 16 and 17, that the European Union would concentrate on its core tasks and that it must remain capable of action. In finding answer to the questions raised by people who had voted against the Constitution it had to be made clear that problems of immigration, jobs, internal and external security, could be better handled in the Union than by Member States acting on their own,' said the CDU MEP. Other members of the EPP-ED group were blunter. Ingo Friedrich (CSU) issued a press release that the Plan B should now be a moratorium on accession, to deepen the community of values that is Europe, adding that Bulgaria and Romania are not mature enough yet to join the EU. Markus Ferber (CDU) calls on the European Council of 16/17 June to say that there will be no launch of accession negotiations with Turkey for the time being. On the Socialist group, Richard Corbett said: 'twelve other countries have indicated that they will continue with their ratification procedures… What to do in such circumstances? The views of the majority surely deserve at least as much consideration as those of the minority… We cannot imply say 'too bad'… There will obviously need to be some accommodation negotiated with the countries which said 'No'. German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, President of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee, said politicians had to react quickly: 'We now need the presentation of a convincing explanation and an attractive vision for the meaning of the European Union in the age of globalisation.' The European dream had to be newly defined and explained, in particular for the younger generations, he said. Leinen added that it now had to be shown the desire for prosperity and security in Europe could be better fulfilled together than by each country on its own. Graham Watson, the leader of the ALDE Group, commented that the French have “slapped the left cheek of Europe, the Dutch the right. I hope this will bring the European Union out of its torpor and force the European and national leaders to show proof of leadership”. During the meeting of the Conference of Presidents with President Barroso, Graham Watson launched his idea for breaking the deadlock: the European Council should postpone by one year the final date for ratification of the Constitution and organise a “true European debate” with a view to holding a “super polling day” in the autumn of 2007, in which everyone ratifies it together. In his group, the elected member of the German FDP, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, repeated the appeal already made after the French no-vote to “put the Constitution on ice!”. Comments along the same lines came from British Green member Caroline Lucas, who felt it is necessary to mark a pause in the ratification process while the debate is resumed on the future direction that the EU is to take (at the same time she admitted there was no doubt need for a Constitution). Amongst European Dutch members, Jules Maaten (VVD Liberal Party, member of the ALDE Group), considers “it will not be easy to explain in Europe why the Netherlands, that has gained so much from the EU, voted against this Treaty”, but the vote must be respected and European institutions must be “more responsive to the dissatisfied European citizens”. Sophie Int'Veld (Liberal Democracy '66, same political group) said: “The 'No' has no plan for the future of Europe. In most cases 'No' was a negative choice: a choice of fear rather than hope, cynicism rather than vision, hatred rather than solidarity and friendship”. In her view, this signal should not be ignored, but the ratification process must continue, she says.
In European political parties, disappointment is the main feeling. In the European People's Party (EPP), President Wilfried Martens said “this is just an obstacle in our path, not the end of the road”, while urging Heads of State and Government to energetically tackle the problem on 16 and 17 June recalling that the EPP will have its own summit on 16 June, before the European Council). ELDR Party President Werner Hoyer trusts that the crisis will prove salutary and that “continuation of the ratification process will hopefully provide the opportunity for an intense debate and reflection on the nature, aims and borders of the European project at a transnational level”. The European Greens, speaking through their co-spokesperson, Grazia Francescato, consider the “no” is not really a “no” against the Constitution but a clear vote of protest against the internal policies of the national governments of France and the Netherlands. This result shows that the European institutions are too far away from the ordinary citizens in the twenty-five countries, the other co-spokesperson, Pekka Haavisto, asserted, saying: “It is our duty as Green politicians to bring European issues closer to the citizens and to work to ensure that the debate on European issues is not held hostage to the deficiencies of national politics”.
Margot Wallström says: “Move on to Plan D for democracy
During the extraordinary meeting of the EP's constitutional committee on Thursday afternoon (more on this later), the vice-president of the European Commission, Margot Wallström, admitted that there was “no given solution” to the current crisis. During the meeting of the Conference of Presidents of the political groups in Parliament, in which she took part today with President Barroso, views on what course of action should be taken now differed, she said. She went on to explain: there are those who would quite simply like to press on, those who would like to bring things to a halt and those who would like to “give some time” to reflection in order to hold a new collective consultation in two years' time (an allusion to the suggestion made by Graham Watson: see above). “Something positive, a plan D, for democracy” could come out of all this, Ms Wallström said, adding that she believes her task is to develop a communication strategy for the autumn, which would provide a good opportunity for tackling the problems that have come up in the debates on the Constitution. The first Eurobarometer analyses, she said, show that: - in France, the main reasons for the no-vote were the impact that the Constitution has on the economic and social situation, the over-liberal nature of the text, the conviction that it could be renegotiated and the problem of Turkey (Ed.: 18% of responses); the main explanations for the yes-vote were EU strengthening compared to China and the United States (invoked in 64% of cases), better functioning for an EU with 25 members (44%), and the risk that France would be weakened in the absence of a Constitution (43%); - in the Netherlands, 52% of reasons for the no-vote were the insufficient influence that the Netherlands would have, 51% the loss of identity, followed by: integration that goes too far, loss of sovereignty, single currency, etc. During the debate, Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff suggested convening a new Convention then a new IGC to “modernise part three” of the Constitution (that on politics which caused the most hostility). Austrian Green member Hannes Voggenhuber exclaimed: “The Constitution is not dead - it has never been alive”. The former Convention member, as passionate as ever, exclaimed that, in reality: “We are now witnessing the painful birth of the European demos”.
Member State parliamentarians were invited to the extraordinary meeting and Ms Serocka, from the Polish Senate, pointed out that the Lower House of Poland expected, on 17 June, to set a date for the referendum on the Constitution. It would seem that the referendum will be held on 9 October, she said, adding that she believed the Polish would say “yes”.