The consultative referendum was introduced in 2015 and abolished again in 2018. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives again debated the introduction of a heavier instrument: the binding referendum.
The referendum in all its forms has been the subject of debate in the Senate and House of Representatives for decades. The representatives of the people just can’t figure it out. They argue for more opportunities for citizens to participate. But when push comes to shove it doesn’t come. Or not in the way it is suggested.
This was especially true for VVD, CDA and SGP on Wednesday. The SP’s private member’s bill should make it possible for citizens to reject bills that have already been passed, if there are sufficient signatures. According to Mark Strolenberg (VVD), this is not the solution to bridging the gap between citizens and politicians. “We must solve the problems and not shift that task onto the citizen.” He argued in favor of making the public participation instruments that already exist, such as internet consultations where citizens can make suggestions about legislative proposals via the internet.
Inge van Dijk (CDA) also acknowledged ‘the gap’, but called the corrective referendum ‘a handbrake’. “With that you stop the train, but you do not change the course.” She advocated citizens’ consultations, in which citizens work together to find solutions to political problems and then come up with recommendations.
During the previous term of office, the bill for the binding referendum was already approved by both Houses. Since it concerns a constitutional amendment, it must be voted on twice in both Houses. Moreover, a two-thirds majority is required in the ‘second reading’. Before this debate it was already known that VVD, CDA, SGP and probably DENK are against the introduction of the referendum. That would be 54 votes against, too many to pass the law.
Although DENK was not present at the debate on Wednesday, it soon became clear that even if DENK would be in favour, it is very uncertain whether the amendment to the law will come in its current form. Especially Forum for Democracy (FVD) and PVV protested strongly against the bill that is now there. It should be clear that the parties are in favor of a referendum. Martin Bosma (PVV) said he wore his funeral suit during the abolition of the consultative referendum. “But,” said Thierry Baudet (FVD), “this referendum is a pacifier.”
He was referring to the high ‘outcome threshold’ for the referendum, a condition of the CU to support the private member’s bill in the first reading. According to this amendment, for a valid result, the majority voting against must be at least equal to a majority (half plus one) of the number of votes cast in the last parliamentary elections. Baudet: “That outcome threshold is a castration of the referendum. It is a Judas region.”
Also read:Yet another referendum: the Chamber is cautiously enthusiastic
Joost Sneller (D66) asked Stieneke van der Graaf (CU) whether her party was prepared to lower the outcome threshold. At first he did not give a concrete answer, but when Sneller asked again, she said that the CU is ‘not unsympathetic’ to it. “But we continue to find it very important that minorities are heard and for that the outcome threshold must be high enough.”
Van der Graaf thinks it can be done, such a high threshold, with ‘turnout-promoting measures’. “For example, by holding a referendum if people already have to go to the polls.”
The same terms were discussed during the debate: the Netherlands dropped out, the gap, confidence in politics, diplomacy. The MPs expressed their concerns about this, but a joint solution does not seem close yet.
The bill will be voted on next Tuesday.
Correction (April 13, 2022): An earlier version of this article stated that Renske Leijten is the initiator of the bill. That was party colleague and former MP Ronald van Raak. This has been adjusted.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of April 14, 2022