“Referendum law seems to die at the last minute”, the AD headlined.
VVD, CDA, SGP and Denk are against and block the introduction thanks to their 54 seats, so that there is no constitutionally required 2/3 majority to still introduce that law. VVD and CDA, as figureheads of the old regent elite, are obviously opposed.
What was that again? Until recently we had a meaningless, but mainly impossible advisory referendum. Like an empty sausage wrapper for an apathetic dog? As a bleeding cloth, nothing more than democracy in front of the stage? Like a complex thing, devoid of substance?
Once, before D66 was good enough to torpedo it, we had the legal scope of organizing a referendum. A so-called democratic tool to frighten the government for a few minutes.
An advisory referendum, of course. You can already picture it: the self-overestimating and arrogant parliamentarians who turn their noses at the opinion and advice of the stupid mob.
Advice the career politicians? Where do the plebs get the guts from? But advisory says enough, gives a way out. It can be tossed aside, which is what happens if it comes by so very occasionally.
The three consultative misfires concerned some amendments regarding the European constitution, the association agreement with Ukraine (yes, the dictatorial Eastern European country of despot Zelensky) and the towage law. In all three cases, the people judged differently from what the government wanted. And that, of course, was not the intention of the government. But don't worry. With a single sheet of A4, an insert and/or some reworded sentences, nothing fundamentally changed the original rejected concept and without a follow-up referendum to submit the amendment to the people, all three voluminous and illegible documents were approved on the compelling intercession of Brussels.
So an advisory referendum does not work. Certainly not if it is taken into account that a large number of signatures must first be collected before the President of the House accepts the wish to participate. 300.000 concerned voters need to be activated for something that is often very complex. Many citizens are not familiar with the text at all, but vote in a very basic way. Is the government for it? Then I vote against! Because trust in the government has been lost for decades.
The Consultative referendum was defeated on the intercession of D66, which, in addition to the elected mayor, also sold the referendum as the crown jewel. In addition to the advisory, 2 other referendums were possible: the corrective and the binding.
In retrospect, the corrective should force the government to decide to withdraw or substantially change an earlier law.
The binding referendum is the ultimate nightmare of career politicians and the regent elite. Binding is binding and that goes too far for the egos in a number of backrooms. They don't sit on the blue plush in The Hague for that kind of meddling.
The first national consultative referendum was held on 1 June 2005 and concerned the European Constitution. More than 61% were against, the government unfortunately for. The sequel can be guessed.
The second referendum took place on April 6, 2016. It concerned the association agreement with Ukraine. The majority was against, the government for!
And March 21, 2018 was the third consultative referendum: the Intelligence and Security Services Act, also known as the low-democratic drag law. Many people had nothing to do with this, understood little about it, but still 49% were against, the House of Representatives and 46% of the population voted in favour. Well before this referendum was to be held, CDA leader Buma indicated that he would ignore the result of the referendum.
The coalition parties VVD and CU joined in.
In 2014, the majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate approved the introduction of a binding referendum, but the constitution required a 2/3 majority. In short, over and out!
In December 2017, the then cabinet decided to withdraw the Advisory Referendum Act.
A referendum to kill the referendum has not been considered for a moment.
At the end of 2018, the State Committee for the Parliamentary System, chaired by Remkes, issued its recommendation to introduce a corrective binding referendum. Despite reasonable praise from reluctant MPs, the proposal has been at the bottom of the pile of nonsensical plans for years now in the bottom drawer of a dusty cupboard of trivialities.
Despite all the vicissitudes and opposition of the fearful in The Hague, it must be said that all three forms of referendum are indeed nonsense. It could be much better and much easier.
In The Alternative Constitution explains in detail how this can be done. However, the whole old order has to be overhauled. And that is possible without constitutional amendments.
When we start from real representatives of the people instead of career politicians who have a direct line with their own supporters, every new item can be submitted to the same group of voters. This makes such a mini-referendum clear, manageable and binding for the representative of the people concerned.
Of course, the voters receive all the information as objectively as possible, with advantages and disadvantages that are widely endorsed in the House. For a more detailed explanation I would like to refer to AS (also here on the site) and the included Plush Revolution as a possible elaboration.
Reints Hofstra.
Read also:
