Friends, Thanks go to Stephanie McDowall, of British Columbia, for bringing this next article to my attention. Unlike the first article we looked at, also from the BBC, this one seems to be quite objective, and therefore more informative. The writer, for example, makes no attempt to tell us what we should think about the EU, but sticks to the topic of "What were the voter's reasons?". In addition, it does not appear that he is trying to spin his interpretation of those reason in any pre-determined way. I must tip my hat to Mulvey, and the BBC, for this report, and also acknowledge that our earlier article, by Kirsty Hughes, did come in the "Analysis" section, where interpretation is permitted. More comments at the end. all the best, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Varied reasons behind Dutch 'No' By Stephen Mulvey BBC News, Amsterdam June 1, 2005 ------------------------------ DUTCH REFERENDUM "Yes" camp Christian Democrats (CDA), largest government party, plus coalition partners VVD and D66 Labour (PVDA) and Green Left opposition parties "No" camp Right-wing Pim Fortuyn party Socialist Party ChristienUnie and SGP, Christian parties ------------------------------ The Dutch Socialist Party was already geared up to celebrate a victory for the "No" camp before the exit poll flashed up on the television screen. But when it appeared the crowd went wild. The margin of 26 points appeared to be at the upper end of expectation. Immediately, the No Constitution Rap, theme tune of the "No" campaign, blasted out and the Socialists danced. The gist of the song is this: "If you want a social Europe, and a Europe for the people, not for business and money, then say 'No' to the constitution." Thinking for themselves ----------------- Some voters evidently did want a social Europe, and voted "No" for that reason, but many others said "No" for quite different reasons. The television screens looming above the party-goers were showing a live programme from Hilversum. Right-wing "No" campaigners periodically appeared - the maverick MP Geert Wilders for example, whose main theme during the campaign was opposition to immigration and Turkish membership of the EU. On the streets of Amsterdam, people were giving varied arguments both for and against the constitution. This may be because neither the "No" side nor the "Yes" side has been putting forward one coherent message, but the people have also been thinking for themselves. One person talks about the euro, the next about domination by bigger EU states. Another will talk about Brussels bureaucracy, or the threat to Dutch liberal values, or loss of sovereignty and national identity, or the motor of European integration speeding out of control. 'Arrogance' -------- A common complaint is that Brussels does not listen. "I am very pleased at this result and not because I am against a united Europe," says Lydia Meist at the Socialist Party celebrations. "It's because of the whole way things were managed, manipulated, not just by our government, but by the authorities in Brussels. The arrogance! Being so sure of themselves without speaking to the people of Europe, deciding for themselves!" Campaigners for the "Yes" vote are also rueing the fact that Dutch citizens have not been asked to vote on EU policy before. "The message from France and the Netherlands is that they are unhappy with the way Europe is being built," says Michiel van Hulten, a leader of the Better Europe foundation and a former MEP. "People are unhappy with the fact that Europe is a project of the elite, not the ordinary people. "The decision to introduce the euro was taken in 1992 in Maastricht, but at the time there was no public discussion. The enlargement of the EU was agreed in 1993, but it was only when it actually happened that the debate began." Separating out all these reasons for the "No" vote and ranking them in order of importance will be a major undertaking. Fuelling force ---------- France and the Netherlands in 2005 clearly have some things in common, including a poorly performing economy and a deeply unpopular government - in the Dutch case, the most unpopular government on record. Some of the arguments heard in both countries have been the same. Some, on the other hand, have been the opposite - French voters lamented their country's diminishing power, while Dutch voters were more likely to complain that the big countries, mainly France and Germany, were too strong, and would become stronger under the constitution. It is also clear that the French "Non" fuelled the Dutch "Nee". "Vive la France," says Daniel de Jongh of the Constitution No [Grondwetnee] group in the Netherlands. The French vote, she says, undermined in one stroke the Dutch government's argument that the Netherlands would be isolated if it rejected the constitution. HAVE YOUR SAY There is a mismatch between the political ideals and the economic reality Una, Muscat, Oman The scale of the French "No" vote also made clear that it was not only nationalists and chauvinists who were opposed to the constitution, she says, and that centrists and left-wingers could vote against it without finding themselves in company they would normally shun. She acknowledges however that both left and right in the Netherlands have tapped into a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the country's main political parties - which all supported the constitution - and a widespread feeling that they are not listening to the voters. The late Pim Fortuyn was the first to do this, achieving huge popularity within months of setting up his anti-immigration party, the Pim Fortuyn list. Now the constitution "No" campaign has built on his anti-establishment legacy. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4601731.stm Published: 2005/06/01 23:15:31 GMT © BBC MMV ------------------------------ rkm> I find the following excerpts to be the core of the article, and it is clear that the writer could not use this kind of language if he was trying to spin the outcome from a pro-EU perspective: The gist of the song [of the "No" campaign] is this: "If you want a social Europe, and a Europe for the people, not for business and money, then say 'No' to the constitution." On the streets of Amsterdam, people were giving varied arguments both for and against the constitution. This may be because neither the "No" side nor the "Yes" side has been putting forward one coherent message, but the people have also been thinking for themselves. One person talks about the euro, the next about domination by bigger EU states. Another will talk about Brussels bureaucracy, or the threat to Dutch liberal values, or loss of sovereignty and national identity, or the motor of European integration speeding out of control. "The message from France and the Netherlands is that they are unhappy with the way Europe is being built," says Michiel van Hulten, a leader of the Better Europe foundation and a former MEP. "People are unhappy with the fact that Europe is a project of the elite, not the ordinary people. "The decision to introduce the euro was taken in 1992 in Maastricht, but at the time there was no public discussion. The enlargement of the EU was agreed in 1993, but it was only when it actually happened that the debate began." The fact that Mulvey departs from BBC's usual editorial position enhances, I believe, the credibility of his reporting. What he says also makes sense in terms of my own observations of how the EU project has proceeded, as you saw in yesterday's posting. I therefore take this article as a welcome validation, to some extent, of my own analysis of the No vote. In this regard I'd like to emphasize one particular statement above, from Michiel van Hulten: "People are unhappy with the fact that Europe is a project of the elite, not the ordinary people." I believe this is true, that this is becoming the core concern of ordinary people in Europe, even more in the empowering wake of the dramatic No votes. If the EU project had been delivering more favorable results on the ground, I doubt if people would be so concerned about the issue of people-power vs. elite power. And if the people of Europe had been more involved in the decisions, if there had been more referenda, this democracy issue may also not have emerged. But the combination of poor results, along with "Nobody ever asked my opinion", creates the conditions where people's minds turn to the fundamental question of how decisions are being made in their societies. This frame of mind, this 'elites vs. people' consciousness, is perhaps also fueled by the contents of the constitution itself, which concentrates immense power in the European Commission, an unelected body. Furthermore, the European Parliament has much, much less power with respect to this Brussels executive than do Europe's national parliaments, vis a vis their national executives. Thus the constitution would dramatically shift power even more away from ordinary people and toward elites, and this further encourages democratic consciousness. One can never be absolutely sure about such things, but I'll bet all my marbles at this point that this 'elites vs. people' issue is now a real one. I also believe that elite strategists are well aware of this fact, in the wake of the No votes. We might say that Mulvey is doing elites just as much a favor as he is ourselves, with his objective reporting. If elites are aware in this way, then let's consider how they might be expected to respond. First of all, I suggest that the 'fear of democracy' is the most deeply held fear that exists in the minds of elites in our "democracies." It was of express concern to those who drafted the U.S. Constitution, for example, and they took great pains to ensure that uprisings of popular sentiment could be contained, so that their wealth and privilege could be maintained. Typically, when "people power" raises its ugly head, and it cannot be readily suppressed or safely ignored, elites respond with effective co-option. In my book, I use the Populists as an example of this principle, where co-option took the form of welcoming the Populists into the Democratic Party, resulting in the quick demise of the once-powerful popular movement. The American Civil Rights Bill, which failed to deal with economic issues, can be seen as a co-option of the powerful Civil Rights Movement, taking most of the wind out of its sails, as a grassroots movement. After that, the action was more in the courts, and democracy had once again been put safely back to sleep. If a few hundred thousand protestors march in the streets, that can be ignored. But if the masses of people look like they might start waking up and thinking, then drastic action is called for. The people must be thrown some crumbs - perhaps big crumbs - to bring them back into the program. Keeping control of the the program is the top priority for elites, as we can see from all the crumbs elites were forced to throw the people's way during the days of the New Deal. FDR once said that the greatest accomplishment of his career was "saving capitalism." In today's European context, what crumbs might we expect elites to offer? I suggest, given the dramatic emergence of dreaded democratic spirit, that the crumbs will be substantial ones. The heads of European political leaders, Chirac et al, may tumble - not primarily because voters don't like them (notice how Blair weathered the storm re/unpopular Iraq war), but more because they have failed in their duty to elites: they did not deliver the voters to the EU program! Elites can use this opportunity to bring in new blood, with fresh sounding slogans, and these new slogans will reflect those crumbs which elites have decided to share, for co-option purposes. The rolling of heads, by itself, will seem to be a sign of "hearing the people", and will to some extent defuse the popular energy. And if the "crumbs" can be maximally responsive to popular sentiments, while minimally sacrificing of core elite objectives, then they may be able to get the bandwagon back on track, albeit a bit behind schedule. In terms of "keeping control of the program", the most essential objective for elites is to further concentrate power in the Brussels bureaucracy. Once that is accomplished, then neoliberal policies, and all the rest, can follow. Elites were over-confident in putting all the bad eggs into one constitutional basket, but they can be forgiven this error in light of the relatively easy time they've had so far in selling the program. They didn't expect the sheep to turn on the shepherds. Based on these considerations, I think Kirsty Hughes may have been on target, in her first option: Some suggest the EU could take some of the key parts of the constitution - an EU foreign minister, new voting arrangements, the European Council presidency - and push these through separately. My guess is we'll see a new package presented, after a change of several governments, that has these kinds of provisions, plus a lot of fluff about popular issues, which will turn out to be non-binding. rkm -- ============================================================ If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email list by sending a message to: •••@••.••• You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website, provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and this disclaimer. Richard Moore (rkm) Wexford, Ireland "Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html _____________________________ "...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire." - Srdja Trifkovic There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs. _____________________________ cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog _____________________________ Informative links: http://www.indymedia.org/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm http://www.MiddleEast.org http://www.rachel.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/ http://www.zmag.org http://www.co-intelligence.org ============================================================