Amsel_ wrote:>hold three referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendu ... etherlands
>vote wrong on all of them
>the government still ends up doing what you rejected
>then they take away your ability to have referendumsThey do the same shit here. In California, the people voted to bar illegal immigrants from using public services and welfare. The courts blocked it for stupid reasons, and then the leftist cabinet refused to challenge the court ruling.
So weird to see people say money is more important than sovereignty, and that it's not undemocratic to blatantly undermine the results of a plebiscite. It's like you guys hate your own nations. I mean, I kind of hate mine too, but not in such a self-destructive way. And we can at least threaten civil war as a cope. You guys can't even shitpost on the internet without getting arrested for having illegal opinions.
Not sure what you're implying with this Netherlands example. I thought your argument was about the EU. Obviously how they make their political decisions is an entirely domestic issue, nobody from outside the Netherlands can tell the Dutch how to make decisions that concern the whole country. If their constitution or legislation tells them that they need to consult the people in some matters, they will do that.
If you check your first example, the referendum on the Constitution of the EU, the Dutch voted against this idea in 2005 (just as the French did) and the project was killed off. There is no EU Constitution anymore. So the EU pretty much respected the decision made by voters. The Dutch parliament didn't adopt the EU Constitution despite Dutch voters rejecting it. So, again, not sure what you thought those examples show.
The second example is an association agreement between the EU and Ukraine which was rejected by Dutch voters in a referendum that was advisory (not mandatory). Only about 32% of the population voted, of which 19% rejected the agreement. As a result of this rejection, the Dutch government secured an additional agreement that they say resolved the issues that made their voters reject it.
The third example is of a referendum on extended powers assigned to the Dutch intelligence agency, which voters rejected and the Dutch government decided to go ahead with, because the referendum was non-binding. But this is an entirely domestic issue, it doesn't have anything to do with the EU.
All these three cases were dealt with according to Netherlands' constitution, the EU had nothing to do with how they make their political decisions. It's entirely up to them how they want to decide whether they support a certain policy or treaty or not.
But I dunno, when people from outside Europe who are critical of the EU or Europe look at such examples, their first reaction is: omg, they are suppressing the people over there, their government overrules referendums or holds them as many times it's necessary for them to get passed. But once you look into the details of each case, you realise it's pretty far from that. But well, Breibart, Zerohedge and the likes wouldn't have any sensational headlines without simplifying these things into some scandalous popular repression.
