Valdai Club

The rejection of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement in the Dutch referendum held last Wednesday is both a victory for democracy and an illustration of how difficult it is for the European Union to respect its basic rules.

The implications of the Dutch “no”

The question was whether the Dutch voters agreed or not with the Association Agreement. The fact that such an issue may be submitted to a referendum is unquestionably proof that democracy is alive and well in the Netherlands. In fact, Dutch voters rejected the Association Agreement by a large majority (64% of vote). But at the same time, the Dutch government and the European Union institutions stated that they would not be guided by the referendum results. Of course, the vote was purely consultative. But from this perspective, the reaction of both European and Dutch authorities is exemplary. It confirms what we already knew from the behavior of these authorities with regard to the July 2015 referendum in Greece as well as various votes in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

Wednesday's vote, however, could weaken the association agreement with Ukraine and, moreover, the entire European Union. And not in the short term, because the agreement, which has the status of a treaty with significant commercial and political implications, has already been ratified by the European Parliament. In fact, it came into force on January 1, 2016. However, this situation cannot last forever. If the Netherlands does not ratify the treaty, it could be challenged in the Court of Justice of the European Union. In any case, this is what is feared in Brussels, where the British referendum, to be held in June, and the "Brexit" are already looming.

European authorities are cornered

On Thursday, April 7, the European Council President Donald Tusk "took note" of the Dutch voters' "No". He said he would "continue to be in contact with Prime Minister (Mark) Rutte on this," as he needed "to hear what conclusions he and his government will draw from the referendum and what his intentions will be." Clearly, he wants the Dutch government to be entirely responsible for the decision. In January, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, warned that a "No" could lead to what he called "a continental crisis." This amounted to recognizing the importance of the referendum. On Thursday, he said he was "triste", according to a spokesman. As for the consequences of the vote, the next step for the government of the Netherlands is “to analyze the outcome and decide on the course of action.” Just like Donald Tusk, he lays responsibility for what might happen next on the Dutch government. But it is clear that the problem cannot be confined to the Netherlands. If European authorities agree to take the referendum into consideration, it is their whole strategy both within and beyond the EU that will be dramatically weakened. If they decide to ignore it, they will offer a powerful argument to supporters of "Brexit" and, more generally, to all "eurosceptic" parties in Europe.

The context of the double EU crisis

This comes against the backdrop of a double crisis within the European Union. First, it is clear that the euro is going to destroy Europe. This is a conclusion that one can come to since 2011 and hardening of the disciplinary framework to deal with the euro crisis. This process became evident in the first half of 2015, when the Greek government and European authorities were engulfed in a crisis. This destruction follows from the entire economic and social situation that the euro generates in different member states. But it also stems from the implicit political framework with regard to the euro which emerges in the Eurozone countries and is marked by a progressive abandonment of all democratic principles.

However, simultaneously with this euro-generated crisis, we have another one, "the crisis of migrants". Its consequences for the EU's operation are obvious: in particular, they are demonstrated by the questioning of the Schengen Agreement. Doubtful about its own identity, but also about its future, the European Union seems not to be able to find a better solution than to create an "enemy", imaginary for the most part, in the person of Russia. This process, it should be added, is also largely inspired by the United States which is very negative about a potential rapprochement between the EU and Russia.

A European strategy crisis

But the Dutch vote partially undermines this creation of an imaginary enemy. Here, the strategy of some European circles is cut to the heart. Moreover, the Dutch "No” to the association agreement between Ukraine and the European Union reflects a deep crisis within the EU. Challenging the relations between Ukraine and the EU, this vote marks the end of the EU’s policy of enlargement to the East.

For behind the questioning of this agreement lies the issue of Russia and the justification for the European Union’s sanctions policy. The fact that the Dutch have clearly spoken out against the agreement is highly symbolic. We remember that the Maidan protests in Kiev were partially about the EU association.

The April 6 vote decisively puts an end to the dream of some Ukrainians to join the European Union. It allows us to measure the tragedy which the Maidan movement engendered by opposing Russia and European Union, a tragedy from which Ukraine will probably need a decade to recover. But this tragedy also affects the EU, and it will take time before we have a complete picture of what the conflict with Russia cost the European countries in both economic and political terms.