Thieme’s contribution to debate on Ukraine referendum result
Chairman,
The Dutch citizens have voted ‘no’ to the EU-Ukraine referendum. However, according to the Dutch Prime Minister Rutte, there are interests greater than those of our citizens, even though the result of the vote could not have been more clear. They did not vote “NO, provided that” or “NO, expect when there will be negotiations” or “NO, unless there are greater interests than the will of the citizens”: they voted NO. Without reservations or a mandate to renegotiate. In a democracy, there is no greater authority than that of the voter and of the elected representatives who promised to respect the result of an intermediary consultation of our voters. With each loophole that is sought in order to do something that goes against the voters’ wishes, our democracy is undermined. And with it, our interests that the Prime Ministers supposedly wants to defend.
The Prime Minister has failed to meet the deadline of 1 November. If the Lower House has any self-respect, it will not agree to yet another renegotiation mandate. A majority in the Lower House has promised our Dutch citizens to respect the result of the vote. The first renegotiation already led to a serious breach of faith with the Dutch people. Another renegotiation is truly unacceptable.
Threats about “having woken sleeping Russian bears” as a supposed reason to sign the referendum, are merely forms of political theatre. It is striking that Prime Minister Rutte should name the “Russian bear” as the main reason to sign the Ukraine referendum, since that same Prime Minister is running his legs off to turn the Netherlands into a gas hub for Russian natural gas. If we want to stop being dependent, we should stop buying natural gas from the Russian bear. That will be effective; unlike a trade agreement with Ukraine.
Chairman, we have heard this use of strong language and threats around an agreement before. Please let me remind you of what Minister Brinkhorst and Prime Minister Balkenende said in 2005: a vote against a European constitution would, in the long run, prove fatal for the Netherlands. “Eventually, the lights will go out in the Netherlands and our country will be closed to the world,” they said. According to them, Europe would not become a superstate, because the European Parliament would “gain more competences”. Instead, it would become more democratic. The opposite turned out to be true. Prime Minister Balkenende warned of the consequences of voting ‘no’. According to him, the belief that a ‘no’ could lead to new negotiations with better results was naïve. I quote: “The other countries will say: this is what you have achieved, the result of your referendum was no, now you will have to face the consequences.” End of quote.
A legally binding declaration is nothing more than a lightning conductor for domestic use. Money from Dutch banks and credit insurers has been used to pay for huge factory farms in Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe. The free trade agreement will not end this disgrace, Chairman; it will merely be a further stigma of shame. Like CETA and TTIP, the Ukraine agreement will only make things worse. It deserves nothing more than a proper repeal Act.
Is the issue around the Ukraine agreement bigger than the Netherlands alone? Chairman, if there is one thing that is bigger than us, it is our democracy that deserves protection against trade agreements with corrupt countries such as Ukraine. Those who claim to fear a woken Russian bear, would do well not to seek confrontation, but to avoid it. To rule is to look forward, and to ignore is to bury one´s head in the sand. And in that context, I take the view that we should put a definitive end to factory farming!