Dutch referendum a painful mistake

4446 5

By Robert van Voren

Whatever the outcome of the Dutch referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will be, the whole process has been very much enlightening and disheartening at the same time. The Dutch state spent forty million euro on a referendum that asked citizens to vote for or against an agreement virtually nobody read, very few really understood, concerning a country most people didn’t know anything about and where virtually none of the voters have ever been. In other words: whatever the people decided, it was a decision based on a total lack of what was at stake and with an avalanche of information that was often incomplete, tendentious or consisting of outright lies. In that respect, the referendum that was meant to be a highly democratic tool turned into a farce and an insult to democracy.

 Of course, it all started on a wrong footing. The campaign to hold the referendum was organized by people who later acknowledged they didn’t care less about Ukraine but were only interested in destabilizing the European Union. Their ultimate goal was the departure of The Netherlands from the EU and for that Ukraine had to be sacrificed. The fact that the campaign was organized with a EU subsidy that should have not been used for this purpose was illustrative of the organizers’ nihilism, and later they managed through other tricks to accumulate four times the maximum campaign subsidy they were allowed to receive from the Dutch government.

 This governmental subsidy was a farce it itself, because the committee that dispersed the funds had no interest in content but only looked at technicalities. The result was that a businessman managed to get 50,000 euro to print toilet paper with “information” against the agreement, which was again a concoction of half-truths, outright lies and a lot of information “from hearsay”, all focused on making people vote against. The organizers of the referendum again played a clever trick by claiming they campaigned “against’, “in favor” and “neutral”, thus amassing more funds by applying for subsidies for all three campaigns separately. That the “neutral” and ‘in favor” campaign materials were so cleverly written that they too evoked an “against” feeling was apparently not of importance.

 Socialist Party MP and campaigner Harry van Bommel, who in spring 2014 stood on Maidan after the carnage and voiced his support for those who fought for freedom, now took a totally different party line. He campaigned “No, no, no” (as if one “no” is not fully understood) and to support his view he paraded a number of “patriotic Ukrainians” who helped explain to the Dutch voters that Ukraine was a divided country in civil war and that many Ukrainians were against this agreement. First there was a self-professed former neighbor of Yanukovich now living in The Netherlands. Then at party gatherings he decided to use the highly-criticized French propaganda film “Masks of the Revolution”, to show that Ukraine is run by a gang of corrupt, right-wing semi-fascist crooks. Subsequently he aired a clip by the separatist Aleksei Zhuravko, a former MP of the Party of Regions who is now hiding from the SBU because of collecting financial support for the separatists and who continues to this very day to post photos of Ukrainian troop movements in social media in order to inform the enemy of their whereabouts and strength. Anything to feed his “no” campaign, irrespective of the content.

robert RL

 And thus the level of the debate continued to sink. Dutch media tried to remain “neutral”, balancing views from both sides. But this not only concerned views in The Netherlands, also Ukrainian views “against” should be put on an equal level as views “in favor”. A Dutch journalist complained to me that she had been sent to Kyiv to interview a Ukrainian “in favor”, “neutral” and “against”. But where to find an “against” here, she sighed. So she went to the DNR, sure she would find one over there. That three-quarters of the Ukrainians are in favor of this Association Agreement was carried by only few media.

 This latter problem – the overwhelming urge to be “neutral” – is hard to explain. The notion that “the truth is in the middle” has taken on such huge proportions that taking sides and supporting a cause have almost become “unhealthy”. One factor that plays a role, I think, is the fact that many experts of the region are either Russia based, or have families in Russia, or are Russia-oriented, and so often they look at the Russo-Ukrainian war with “Russian eyes” or at least under strong influence of Russian media and public opinion. What they don’t understand is that Putin’s Russia is not Russia, but a country gang-raped by 75 years of communism and subsequently hijacked by one of the worst rapists, the KGB. So while dissident Russian writer Vladimir Voinovich makes his choice and openly states he will not visit Crimea as long as it is occupied even though his parents are buried there, they continue to be “neutral” and support the Moscow-induced view that there is a civil war in Ukraine and that the country is run by a corrupt clique that romances with right-extremism. Their views have an impact, because they are “experts” and thus they should know. And in the sea of total ignorance their well- worded opinions are swallowed almost without criticism.

 The campaign for the referendum has triggered the worst possible discussions and debates in social media. Naively, I always thought that the Dutch after 400 years of democracy had at least a certain minimal standard. That view has been totally crushed. What I saw passing by was worse than I could have imagined in my worst dreams. It was much worse than the shouts of the mob in Vilnius in 2011 during the gay parade in the city, which I then ascribed to being in a post-totalitarian country still learning the ropes of democracy. Well, in Lithuania the climate has changed, and much for the better. There they know what lack of freedom means, they understand the necessity of defending it, at all costs.

 In Holland it seems the past is long forgotten and the cosy life in an affluent country has made people greedy, self-serving, egocentric and above all fundamentally dissatisfied. They are convinced they are entitled to have only the best and that the whole world is crouching upon them in order to take away that what is “rightfully theirs”: Muslims, Poles, corrupt politicians, and now another 45 million Ukrainians. They repeat slogans about “right wing extremists” and “fascists” in Ukraine, without realizing that their populist leaders are faithful pupils of Mussolini and the like, and that their “popular resistance” has the same elements as politics in Germany in the late 1930s.

 To me the referendum has been a very painful confrontation with the country in which I grew up. It was a liberal country, a country with free people, open-hearted, welcoming and with a very vibrant community of people working in charities and aid organizations, either as volunteer or as a professional calling. The Netherlands I saw these past weeks are a total opposite. I am ashamed of the Dutch who voted against Ukraine, who do not understand the price of freedom, who do not understand the psychological importance of knowing there are others by your side. It goes too far to say the country needs a little war to wake up, but deep down I cannot resist that nasty feeling. 70 years of peace have turned a nation into a wobbling overfed Christmas turkey. Poor country, and poor Ukraine that sees its integration into the European family threatened by this self-indulging lot.


Jeroen M. Willems

As a Dutch national who, indeed, works for several charities as a volunteer, namely the Amsterdam Food Bank and an international organisation that provides medical help for unregistered refugees, but who voted against the Association Agreement with Ukraine in the referendum, I am taken aback by your angry and hostile comments. You state that you are ashamed of me, and others, because I voted against the agreement, a decision I actually reached after careful and conscientious study and consideration. You state that I reached my decision on ignorant, selfish and self-indulgent grounds. Are you sure of what you are saying? I share neither your view that I do not understand what I am voting against, nor that I do not understand the price of freedom, nor your opinion that I am a member of a 'self indulging lot', who 'deserves a little war to wake up'. How dare you say this. I take offence at your prejudicial comments, because I studied the agreement carefully before I decided to vote 'against'. Yes, I sympathize with the Ukranian people, and I would like to help them, but I do not think that the Association Agreement in its present form, which is actually a political instrument disguised as a trade agreement more than anything else, is the right means to do so. This is my legitimate opinion, and it is not for you to be judgmental about me because I hold this opinion, which is my democratid right. If, in your opinion, the Dutch did not understand the Association Agreement and did not know anything about the Ukranian people in the first place, maybe you could have considered to enlighten us, instead of judging us. It is no good blaming millions of people, who cast their legitimate vote against the agreement, using the information they had at their disposal, simply because you do not agree with the voting process or the referendum campaign. Let alone accuse them of ignorance, selfishness, self-indulgence, and wishing them harm. Who are you to judge, blame, and condemn, Mr. Robert van Voren?

Marc Ross

Mr. van Vooren , I am sure there is a country out there that meets your democratic standards, that will be happy receive your as asylum-seeker. Please do so as soon as possible. Thank you.

Hans van Vliet

Everyone has every right to criticise every opinion. That is part of the debate and called freedom of speech. Having said this, my opinion is that a referendum is not the right instrument in a representative democracy, easily organised and hijacked by one or another group for its own special purpose (in this case EU sceptics). lets also not forget that the "majority" who voted NO are still only a minority of all those eligible to vote. Who for the most part were possibly in favour, could not care less or hoped to bring the turn out below 30% (which would have made this referendum a none-issue) which almost happened.


At its heart this is about anti-immigration. Intellectually dishonest demagogues like you say that we're like Mussolini or Hitler because we don't want to be displaced in our own countries and eventually disappear off the face of the earth as a people by endless migration of incompatible racial aliens--it's you who should go live in another country. You'll be happy, and we'll be happy too. Ukraine itself doesn't have anything to do with the people turning against the EU. The fact that the EU is a genocidal crypto-communist supranational entity with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who are trying to destroy the indigenous people of Europe with endless alien colonization of Europe is what's wrong. Why give the EU more power? It should be destroyed as it is a monster far different from what it was ever intended to be, and what it was sold as to member states. We can sympathize with the Ukranian situation but we're not going to do something against our own interest by giving the EU more power.

Jeroen M. Willems

Robert, I just read your FB-comment: “They voted for their own comfortable and cosy lives and voted for an inward-turned country that is rapidly becoming xenophobic. They betrayed those who fight for freedom. It is a banquet of egocentrism. But we will continue - and prevail. There are also many good Dutchmen, many of whom did not vote, and they will stand with you.” You make a lot of assumptions and generalisations based on insufficient evidence, and conclude that all people who voted ‘no’are eviI. Are you aware that your line of reasoning reveals something about you, namely that you do not seem to be able to distinguish between someone’s actions or personal opinion, with which you evidently disagree in the strongest possible terms, and someone’s personal integrity. In other words: bad choice = bad person. It is this attitude that is at the root of all conflict, but it can never resolve issues or disagreements in a peaceful manner. For the sake of peace: please focus on the issue, rather than attack people’s personal integrity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.