PARADOXICAL REFERENDUM

More than half (61 per cent) of the Dutch voted against an association agreement between Ukraine and the EU at an "advisory", meaning legally non-binding, referendum in the Netherlands. The turnout was just above 32.1 per cent. It is not clear yet what impact the referendum will have on the agreement with Ukraine. But it seems that this is not the chief outcome of the plebiscite.

"New radicals"

The Netherlands was the last EU country not to ratify the agreement with Ukraine, which EU leaders signed in 2014. As in all the other 27 EU member countries, this required a normal vote in parliament, in the course of which the document was actually approved. However, 300,000 Dutch people signed a petition demanding a referendum.

According to the law on non-binding plebiscites, which came into force in the Netherlands in 2014, any controversial issue can be put up for public debate, if an initiative to this effect receives the backing of a sufficient number of citizens. Citizens of the Netherlands decided that the issue of association with Ukraine fit in the "controversial" category.

Will the Dutch government take the results of the referendum into account? A parliamentary election is expected in this country in 18 months, and although the authorities' own opinion is opposite, they are unlikely to completely ignore the will expressed by such a big number of citizens. The current centre-right coalition led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte is an entity that is very fragile, and amid a serious migration crisis it has begun to significantly lose popularity, say, in favour of the rightist Party for Freedom and its leader Geert Wilders. Wilders became popular owing to his anti-Islamic rhetoric. He vehemently opposed migration and Turkey's accession to the European Union and now backed the referendum on the agreement with Ukraine. He is a politician that leading Western media outlets refer to as "right-wing populist" and "nationalist" but he refuses to consider himself as such and avoids any comparisons with, for example, France's Marine Le Pen, and says that his political idol is Margaret Thatcher.

It is noteworthy that the referendum procedure also had the backing of the Socialist Party, and this is something that once again confirms that the usual division into rightists, leftists and centrists has started to blur in Europe. The centrists have been increasingly failing to do their "field work" properly, and the leftists and rightists are moving away from their classic image and becoming true political eclectics in their rhetoric, taking the most important and advantageous that there is from their opponents and as a result finding common ground with each other. It is also noteworthy that these "new radicals" on both sides explain that the reason for their intolerance towards, for example, they very same migrants is not ethnic or religious hatred but their desire to protect European tolerance - European values such as the right to be gay, feminist or atheist - in other words something that outsiders will not be able to perceive. Therefore, they need to protect themselves from them [migrants]. This is the paradox.

Since nobody has actually asked Europeans what they think about the problem of migrants, which is currently a very topical issue for Europe, and nobody has held any referenda, one gets the feeling that the Dutch have decided to take it out on Ukraine. Because it is doubtful that ordinary Dutch people found the time to seriously understand what they will get out of the association agreement with Kiev, which has more than a thousand pages and is replete with a variety of terms. This is also indirectly confirmed by the fact that 70 per cent of the population simply did not turn out for the referendum, while citizens of the other 27 EU countries did not even inquire what they would get out of that document.

In this regard, it would be relevant to cite a description of the referendum campaign given by a Washington Times correspondent: "Far-left campaigners took Palestinian flags to 'no' rallies. The far-right talked about Muslim immigrants. The Dutch government, obligated to subsidize electioneering groups distributed money, among other things, to a group that printed Ukrainian national symbols on toilet paper and to animal rights advocates and opponents of atomic energy". That is a complete jumble and, in essence, simply a way to express protest, no matter against what.

The future of the European Union

Why is it the Dutch - citizens of a country that was one of the founders of the European Union in 1957 - who are acting like troublemakers? Apparently, for the same reason that they (and the French, too) rejected a draft single European Constitution in a referendum in 2005. In other words, there is simply no answer to this question. Why? Just because.

But European analysts and political pundits are still painfully trying to get to the truth, though perhaps it is not something they could actually benefit from. After all, the outcome of the referendum in the Netherlands has made many European observers to start to think not so much about what happens to Ukraine next, but about the future of the EU. Many observers and politicians in Europe are unanimous that the Dutch voted against the very idea of a united Europe and decision-making mechanisms in supranational EU institutions, and sought to demonstrate that Brussels does not always hear their voices. This, certainly, shows the weaknesses of representative democracy, which the West recognizes but seemingly fails to notice and only highlights its advantages. And now it is interesting what the results would have been of similar referenda in other countries, and not so much regarding their attitude to Ukraine but their attitude to European institutions. The president of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, said that "the results of the referendum reflect the will of the citizens of the Netherlands to induce the EU to change, to make it more open". European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker even warned against "a continental crisis" that he said could erupt if the Dutch voted against. One can quite understand these fears, especially now, after the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, and given the unresolved situation with migrants, economic problems and, most importantly, the upcoming 23 June Brexit referendum.

From Kiev to The Hague

But Ukrainians are as far away from these European fears as is Kiev from The Hague by foot. For many Ukrainians, the referendum in the Netherlands was not just a vote, but a vote on an agreement that has become a symbol of the Ukrainian developments of 2013-14, which gave a name to Maidan, which has since been referred to as nothing else but Euromaidan. After all, it was these developments in Ukraine that led to civil clashes in Kiev, the war in Donbass and the deaths of many people. "People died for it" - this is what a former Maidan activist said, according to media reports.

[Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko encouraged his fellow countrymen. He said that despite anything "Ukraine will continue to implement the association agreement and ensure the creation of a deep and comprehensive free trade area with the European Union, because that is the path to the modernization of the Ukrainian state and strengthening of its independence". But the fact remains a fact. Increasingly more often Western media have described Ukraine not as an example of aspiration to democracy, but as a corrupt country with a weak economy.

In addition, another political crisis is clearly brewing in Ukraine. Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has resigned. He believes that the political crisis in his country was unleashed artificially and he does not conceal his political ambitions - he wants to hold the post higher than that of prime minister. Albeit, here is one more paradox - according to the authors' plan, the agreement should help the Ukrainians fight corruption and crises.

And from London to Washington

However, the referendum will most probably not have any impact on the agreement and the latter will probably be ratified, perhaps with some changes or concessions for the Netherlands. Especially as it is already being applied. "I think this problem can be managed as we have managed other difficult issues before. Let's leave it to the Netherlands and European institutions," Angela Merkel said. And nobody doubts this. After all, the rejected European constitution does exist anyway in the form of the Treaty of Lisbon. This agreement will exist as well. In fact, this document is not that important for Europeans. Of a far greater importance will be the results of the Brexit referendum, the initiator of which, Nigel Farage, hailed "an important victory for democracy" after the Dutch plebiscite. "If I am elected the head of the republic in the next election, I will arrange Frexit for France, if the French nations backs it," Marine Le Pen promised, for her part.

But that's not all either - the next referendum that the tireless Dutch may organize could be about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement between the EU and the US. And this is even more interesting. So, political developments, which seem to be completely different in terms of timing and meaning, are intertwining in a very unexpected manner right before our eyes. However, this difference and unexpectedness only appear to be there at first sight. In reality, things are very much linked.