The referendum as a dangerous tool

Tomorrow, the Netherlands will hold a referendum on the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU. In fact, it is the only country of the 28 member countries of the European community that has decided to subject this international agreement to a popular vote. Also, this happened after last year’s votes in both houses of parliament supported this international document which is very important for our country and is aimed at rapprochement with Europe. The question is, therefore, how it happened so that fringe parliamentary parties and extra-parliamentary political forces in the country were able to impose their will on the entire parliament, to force a referendum and to effectively influence the government’s foreign policy decisions? It is this question that was the starting point of our conversation [recorded on April 1. – Ed.] with Dutch senator Sybe Schaap who was visiting Ukraine for the sixteenth time, while his first visit was back in 1992.

“So, the question of the referendum. Of course, I have to be a little bit careful because I’m a senator in the Dutch parliament, and that doesn’t mean I don’t say what I think. But it would be very bad, there will be questions in the parliament the day after tomorrow, ‘Mr. Minister, Prime Minister, look at this, it’s your man in the Liberal Party, and look what he said.’ I’m not scared to say something. This referendum’s specific matter is the treaty with European Union, it is incident. We got a referendum law, it is a bad law, I’m fairly open about it. It is an idiot law, because it just tells that when the representative system has made a decision and we are ready for implementation, then we could be corrected by a referendum. Who is in charge, you know? Some people or the political system we have chosen for, the constitutional system? And so, this is a completely idiot law. I’m from the Liberal Party, we fought against it, but OK, the majority was pro. And then, some people took an initiative to come to a real referendum, the first one, and then they say: ‘Now we are going to make a referendum and give an advice to the Dutch government, you know, to say ‘Yes,’ or to say ‘No’ to the treaty.’ But even those people that have taken initiative say: ‘We have nothing against Ukraine, it has other subject, we are against the European Union, and we are against the government that is adjusting to the European Union.’”

By the way, the other day I interviewed a Latvian MP who reminded me that after the so-called Anschluss of Austria and Germany in the mid-1930s, a German saying appeared which can be translated as “the referendum is a bonus for demagogues.” What do you say to that?

“Yeah, in the Netherlands also. It is the negative movement which is now the populist movement that has a nice instrument, you know, to shout: ‘We are against!’ and when you ask: ‘Against what?’ then they say: ‘No matter what we are against, we are against elites, we are against this government, we are against the European Union, and maybe next time against NATO, and fuel rates.’ It has some, well, the popular uprising, be very careful when that happens, and don’t give them the instrument.”

Some opposition forces that oppose the Association Agreement declare that it means more Europe, even though the document actually does not mention the prospect of EU membership. Why some of your compatriots fear more Europe, even though that means expanding the zone of security, prosperity and so on?

“Especially now the Socialists, they are also populists, say: ‘This treaty is the first step to membership of European Union.’ Then the government parties, and the government, and Europe say: ‘Where is it written that it is the first step? We have many treaties with other countries. No country will be a member of the European Union.’ And then they say: ‘This time it will be. Even when it’s not written there, it will be a first step to a membership.’

“At this stage it is impossible for Ukraine to be a member, you have a long, long, long way to go, but in the end, when you are very successful and going that way, it is stabilizing Europe.

“It’s much better, you know, that you work to be nominal member, so what’s wrong with that? Then the other demagogue feeling is coming: ‘We don’t want Europe, we are nationalists, or we are patriots, or we love the nation state, or we want sovereignty, that’s Dutch sovereignty, we want to restore it, we never gave it away, but still we want to restore it.’ It’s demagogue stupidity.”

By the way, your prime minister stated that Dutch voters would vote in favor of the agreement. Do you see such a statement as well-founded?

“No, I’m skeptical. I think the majority will vote against.”

Will the voter turnout reach the threshold of 30 percent, needed for a valid referendum?

“Probably yes, but it’s speculation. Wednesday night [April 6] we will know, but I’m a little bit pessimistic, I think we will get a 30 percent, and it will be a majority ‘No.’ But suppose 30 percent is coming, two thirds says ‘No.’ Then it’s only 20 percent of the Dutch population making a blockade against a treaty that is already adjusted by the other 27 member states of Europe. It’s absolute craziness.”

So, how do you think your government will act in such a situation? Will they go on and ratify this agreement, or try to renegotiate and revise its contents?

“This referendum is only an advice to the government, on paper, then the Dutch government says: ‘OK, we accept this, you know, as binding vote.’ I warned the prime minister when he was visiting the Senate: ‘When you accept this as a binding vote, there will be more referenda, and it will be impossible to govern this country.’ Because then you have a democratic instrument, you know, making a blockade against democracy. It’s very paradoxical, but this is so bad.”

Is the prime minister’s argument that Ukraine is a large market not really working in favor of the agreement?

“They don’t believe him. We had big discussion in the Senate, and they said things that were not true. For instance: ‘The Ukrainian population is absolutely against this deal.’ I said: ‘Where did you read it?’ And they said: ‘It is so.’ I said: ‘Well, there were opinion polls, and 70, 80, maybe even 90 percent of the Ukrainians is pro-treaty. And the people that are against it, well, that is the old Soviet mentality, don’t support those people. It does not help.’”

Why are there parties with this mentality in your country? Is Russian influence to blame?

“Yeah, I think there is Russian influence. Putin is supporting Marine Le Pen in France, Putin is probably supporting the AfD in Germany, why not supporting the Freedom Party in the Netherlands? I can’t prove it, you know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. You know, in the 1980s we had a well-developed peace movement in the Netherlands, it was very strong. Later on, it was proven that the leaders of the peace movement all were paid by the Soviet Union, by the DDR, by Prague, by Moscow. There were on the list, they were paid, so…”

Not long ago, the US ambassador to Ukraine said that this country had the potential to become an agricultural superpower. Many people here did not like the comparison. What do you think about this?

“Give it another name. I have been active farmer in the Netherlands and grew potatoes, and I’m sure, you know, when I would have settled here and have done all the job myself, I would’ve been a rich man. That agricultural potential here is enormous, the only thing you have to do is to organize it, to modernize it, and not produce raw materials, but you have to add value to it. Growing potatoes make good fries from it, or chips, then you make money. Ukraine has huge potential in agriculture.”

What prevents us from doing it now?

“It will grow, there are already Dutch farmers here, big companies in the Netherlands have settlements already here. And here the treaty is so very important for us, no problems at the border for import-export.

“Corruption is a problem, a lack of organization is a problem. But listen: a problem is a challenge, a problem shouldn’t get fatalism. Suppose there is no problem, life would be boring. So, here life is very interesting.

“Concerning the resignation of the prosecutor general, those demagogues are not interested in what you are doing. But businesses… Oh, yes. You know, when things happen to you, and there is a possibility to go to court, and it is an open court, that just reacts to the facts of what is happening, that is very good news for businesses. They want to be protected.

“And you have to take over good standards of the quality of products, and those standards to export to Europe. And then you could say: ‘Look what we have done!’ This is OK, it’s easier to export. And so to develop your country in that way, strong institutions are very important, rule of law that works is very important. When in fact you have that open market than you also will become our member.”

But can we expect that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the government of the Netherlands will try to improve relations with Ukraine?

“I don’t know what reaction will be after Wednesday, but it is impossible within the European family that one country is disturbing this treaty completely. Then we in the Netherlands will have a big problem, and we can’t afford such a problem. So I think there will be a smart solution. For instance – I have an idea – an addendum to the treaty which explicitly tells: ‘This is not a first step towards membership.’ And then we can say to the ‘No’ voters: ‘You have your vote.’”

Since it is your sixteenth visit to this country, are you becoming more optimistic about the future of Ukraine?

“Since I came here for the first time (that first time was in 1992 or so, immediately after the collapse [of the Soviet Union], it was a disaster), I have seen it improving, so the tendency is not bad, it is only the disturbing force of Russia. And that is a huge problem that is destabilizing your country, and we have to get it solved. But the general tendency for this country is not bad. So, to say I’m optimistic is a little bit too much, maybe, but I’m absolutely not pessimistic.”