Dutch referendum results - No to EU-Ukraine deal - Polidicks

Dutch referendum results - No to EU-Ukraine deal

56 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;50085876]Ukrainian import goods will likely not go through the Netherlands instead through the Piraeus port (Greece). I doubt Ukraine's import/export will increase since the country produces nothing but iron. In the end the deal has more cons then pros. The treaty contains more then just "hey fam wanna trade?". It contains stuff like the EU "increasing the stability of the Ukrainian borders" this will tick off Russia a lot. Ukrainian citizens won't need a Visa to travel to the EU and vice versa. Ukraine can ask for financial support to enact certain aspects of the treaty but the country is one of the most corrupt in the world. The EU will provide military support (this is in article 1!) and they will start the procedure of joining the UN.[/QUOTE] I am not connecting the Ukraine with that, it's just this uninformed anti-EU blabber which is completely ignoring the MASSIVE benefits for most countries that I am aiming at. The fact that increasing stability of the Ukraine border ticks of Russia is talking for itself, isn't it? And of course the Ukraine is in no position to join the EU anyways. You forget that we are still talking about a free trade deal, not joining the EU. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MuffinZerg;50085878]Why doesnt everybody trade with everybody, everybody profits from it? ...right? Doesn't quite work this way.[/QUOTE] Why are you making up extremely simplified points that make no sense and then argue against them again? [quote] Why don't we all just speak one language beginning tomorrow, everybody profits from it? ....right? Doesn't quite work that way. [/quote]

[QUOTE=karimatrix;50085344]Well, good luck with receiving any longterm benefit from that![/QUOTE] I don't think you realise just how much damage has been done like, Ukraine has been economically shifted (permamently) towards the west now - it doesn't matter if the government is useless or corrupt because the massive sanctions and decline in trade with russia (plus improved relations with the west) means that Ukraine is going to come to increasingly depend upon the European market when buying or selling goods like, in 20 or 30 years the impact is going to be really obvious. Ukraine is being increasingly separated from Russia and the actions of the Russians haven't done much to heal the already widening breach between the two nations

[QUOTE=Killuah;50085784]Call me stupid but I think the Netherlands might profit from being the biggest trade port in the biggest free trading and monetary union as well as the biggest economic area in the world. Of course the talks with Ukraine is political and against Russian interest but using existing economy and trading numbers as reasons against a proposition that's basically saying "hey lets increase trading" seems kinda missing the goal?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't have an issue with it if the EU stayed just a trading and monetary union. The problem is that the EU right now tries to be a confederacy that sees its countries more like different provinces, instead of their own countries with their own sovereignty. Which is something the EU can't be really trusted with in my opinion. The EU has barely control over what is going on in the other end of Brussels, where their headquarters are located, let alone countries thousands of kilometres away from them. It's fucking ridiculous when Europe's most wanted terrorist could hide in Brussels for over four fucking months, which is right under the nose of the EU. Letting the EU be in charge of our national security seems like a foolish endeavour with the way the EU is handling things now, yet you don't see them ever admitting that they might mishandle things at this very moment. Hell, some of their most prominent members were even saying that the referendum is dangerous for the EU. More like that it is dangerous for their positions of power. We didn't even elect those people in, no wonder that they seem to dislike democracy when it isn't in their favor.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50085908]And of course the Ukraine is in no position to join the EU anyways. You forget that we are still talking about a free trade deal, not joining the EU.[/QUOTE] The issue is not that I'm afraid they will join the EU the issue is that it's not just a free trade deal. It's much more overbearing then just trade. If it was just easing trade then I'd be a huge fan. Like I said it contains a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with free trade.

[QUOTE=Jordax;50085961]I wouldn't have an issue with it if the EU stayed just a trading and monetary union. The problem is that the EU right now tries to be a confederacy that sees its countries more like different provinces, instead of their own countries with their own sovereignty. Which is something the EU can't be really trusted with in my opinion. The EU has barely control over what is going on in the other end of Brussels, where their headquarters are located, let alone countries thousands of kilometres away from them. It's fucking ridiculous when Europe's most wanted terrorist could hide in Brussels for over four fucking months, which is right under the nose of the EU. Letting the EU be in charge of our national security seems like a foolish endeavour with the way the EU is handling things now, yet you don't see them ever admitting that they might mishandle things at this very moment. Hell, some of their most prominent members were even saying that the referendum is dangerous for the EU. More like that it is dangerous for their positions of power. We didn't even elect those people in, no wonder that they seem to dislike democracy when it isn't in their favor.[/QUOTE] You can't have a trading and monetary union wihout exchange of cultur, poltics and other stuff. Assuming this is one of the inherent mistakes that were made when we got the € and that is now biting us in the ass. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mega1mpact;50086033]The issue is not that I'm afraid they will join the EU the issue is that it's not just a free trade deal. It's much more overbearing then just trade. If it was just easing trade then I'd be a huge fan. Like I said it contains a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with free trade.[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as "just a trade deal" nowadays. You can't disconnect it from politics and you never could.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50085957]I don't think you realise just how much damage has been done like, Ukraine has been economically shifted (permamently) towards the west now - it doesn't matter if the government is useless or corrupt because the massive sanctions and decline in trade with russia (plus improved relations with the west) means that Ukraine is going to come to increasingly depend upon the European market when buying or selling goods like, in 20 or 30 years the impact is going to be really obvious. Ukraine is being increasingly separated from Russia and the actions of the Russians haven't done much to heal the already widening breach between the two nations[/QUOTE] The problem is, if there is such a widespread corruption, will Ukraine be able to buy EU goods in these 30 years, unless they provide discounts and such?

[QUOTE=Jordax;50085961]I wouldn't have an issue with it if the EU stayed just a trading and monetary union. -snip-[/QUOTE] [quote=mega1mpact] The issue is not that I'm afraid they will join the EU the issue is that it's not just a free trade deal. It's much more overbearing then just trade. If it was just easing trade then I'd be a huge fan. Like I said it contains a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with free trade.[/quote] You can't have a shared monitary policy without a shared fiscal policy. You'll end up with 1 nation living outside its means using other members fiscal policies to prop up unsustainable spending. You can't have free trade without free movement. Consider a situation with 2 countries. 1) no minimum wage, no protection for workers, no regulation on worker conditions or hours 2) A country with a minimum wage, protection for workers, limited number of work hours per week + workers need to be treated well. Country 1 will out compete country 2. The companies will make more profit and sell their shit for cheaper than country 2. Free trade means no tariffs meaning country 1 simply can't defend itself. Free movement means if a country has such awful conditions its workers are free to move elsewhere and work elsewhere. Its a form of regulation. Political union is also beneficial imo. United the countries have more influence on a global level, larger union with more diversity has more protection from lulls in the market. The standards enforced are also largely beneficial to the people living in the bloc. tl;dr just trading and monetary union is unsustainable

[b]I see no problem to have a regular trade agreement, I do not want all the rest of the garbage.[/b] [QUOTE=Laserbeams;50085514]I don't really care, the referendum will not affect the association at all, it was already signed by all countries in the EU except for the Netherlands, it's just a matter of time until it's signed by the Dutch[/QUOTE] This is exactly the kind of attitude that made me vote no. I see no benefit in establishing a very intertwined relationship with a corrupt country that will need a lot help to become stable again. I also do not want them to join the EU in any way, they will just become another huge voting block that won't contribute to the EU's finances at all. [img]http://i.imgur.com/WkTNOVJ.png[/img] As you can see, plenty of countries have a lot of voting power, that contribute barely anything. In a Dutch government document it is stated that this is the most intensive assocation degree that has been made so far. There was actually a paper published in 2014 by the European University Institute that explains this thorougly. Summary: This paper analyses the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (AA). It argues that this new legal framework, which has the objective to establish a unique form of political association and economic integration, is characterised by three specific features: comprehensiveness, complexity and conditionality. After a brief background of the EU-Ukraine relations, the following aspects are scrutinised: legal basis and objectives, institutional framework and mechanisms of enhanced conditionality and legislative approximation. In addition, constitutional challenges for the effective implementation of the EU-Ukraine AA are discussed. Based upon a comparison with other EU external agreements, it is demonstrated that the AA is an innovative legal instrument providing for a new type of integration without membership. [url]http://forumvoordemocratie.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Associatieverdrag_Integratieverdag_Guillaume_van_der_Loo.pdf[/url] [QUOTE=Clavus;50085310]The whole referendum was a bit of a wash because of the 30% turn-up threshold. If all yes-voters stayed at home (which I personally assume, most potential yes-voters actually did), that threshold wouldn't have been met and the referendum would've been invalid. It's more likely that the law that allows for these particular referenda will change to adapt more sensible rules.[/QUOTE] This is so incredibly comical. People actually stand in the way of a democratic process, because they do not agree with it. This is the same as putting guards in front of voting booths. You know that a majority will vote against, so instead of accepting that a majority disagrees with you, you hamper it. Then when you lose, you say that it is all a sham and that the majority of the voters didn't vote. You would have to get over a million voters to make YES the winning vote. Also, for those saying that it was only 32 percent that voted. The turn-out for the 2014 European elections were 37,3, if we had that same turn-out, the YES vote would've still lost.

[QUOTE=Jordax;50085484]Add with it that our current government is caring more about the EU than our own country, or securing a EU job after this election cycle, and that said government has a scandal every two months at this rate, our taxes go up and we get less and less in return for it, and you can see why people here are fed up with the EU. It's not really something against the Ukrainian people, but people genuinely don't want to shell out billions of euros every year into Greece 2.0.[/QUOTE] The treaty actually says that Ukraine can ask for financial support from [I]existing mechanisms[/I], which Ukraine was already able to do before this treaty. The EU is going to send some other extra money to help get some of the targets of the treaty become a reality, but the treaty itself doesn't require the EU to do that, the EU just wants to help Ukraine. Also almost all of those are problems with our government, not the EU. [QUOTE=Jordax;50085484] Also, this does place the current Dutch government in a bit of a predicament. They could ignore the referendum and approve the EU's plan, yet that would most likely damage their political parties to the point that they pretty much hand over the next elections next year to the Euro-sceptic Nationalistic party here. Or they actually listen to the results of the referendum, which will probably result in the EU plan's getting delayed, which might result in a repeat of the 2004 Treaty of Lisbon, where the Dutch population also voted against back then, before the EU approved it anyway by rewriting some parts and not holding a referendum about it this time.[/QUOTE] A lot of members of parlement, including the leader of one of the two parties that form the current government coalition, have said that they would not ignore the referendum, and that it should be taken seriously. [QUOTE=Mega1mpact;50085876] The treaty contains more then just "hey fam wanna trade?". It contains stuff like the EU "increasing the stability of the Ukrainian borders" this will tick off Russia a lot. Ukrainian citizens won't need a Visa to travel to the EU and vice versa. The EU will provide military support (this is in article 1!) and they will start the procedure of joining the UN.[/QUOTE] Let's leave out the part where the EU would help Ukraine improve human rights in the country, fight corruption, etc, etc. [QUOTE=Mega1mpact;50085876] Ukraine can ask for financial support to enact certain aspects of the treaty but the country is one of the most corrupt in the world.[/QUOTE] But why not help them become less corrupt? That is one of the targets of this treaty. [QUOTE=Jordax;50085961] It's fucking ridiculous when Europe's most wanted terrorist could hide in Brussels for over four fucking months, which is right under the nose of the EU.[/QUOTE] Um, that is because there is currently [I]no[/I] combined EU effort to fight terrorism, not because the EU wouldn't be able to fight terrorism. The indivual countries have to handle all that shit themselves at the moment, and the fact that Abdeslam was able to hide there for so long was because of fundamental flaws with the Belgian police, mistakes, as well as a few other factors. For this reason people are calling for a combined EU effort against terrorism. [QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50086239] I see no benefit in establishing a very intertwined relationship with a corrupt country that will need a lot help to become stable again.[/QUOTE] Yeah man fuck Euromaidan let's not help them at all after they made their president resign because they wanted to have a closer relation to us. [QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50086239] I also do not want them to join the EU in any way, they will just become another huge voting block that won't contribute to the EU's finances at all. [/QUOTE] Except several major EU countries don't want Ukraine to join, which keeps Ukraine from joining. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50086239] This is so incredibly comical. People actually stand in the way of a democratic process, because they do not agree with it. This is the same as putting guards in front of voting booths. You know that a majority will vote against, so instead of accepting that a majority disagrees with you, you hamper it. Then when you lose, you say that it is all a sham and that the majority of the voters didn't vote. You would have to get over a million voters to make YES the winning vote. Also, for those saying that it was only 32 percent that voted. The turn-out for the 2014 European elections were 37,3, if we had that same turn-out, the YES vote would've still lost.[/QUOTE] I did not vote, first and foremost, because the people that made the referendum happen lied about what the referendum was about. Hell they didn't even lie, they publically said they didn't give a fuck about this treaty. I was going to vote yes, until that happened.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50086317]But why not help them become less corrupt? That is one of the targets of this treaty.[/QUOTE] This would require a massive reform, you can't just do that with a trade treaty that says "oh and btw please be less corrupt"

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50086239][b]I see no problem to have a regular trade agreement, I do not want all the rest of the garbage.[/b] This is exactly the kind of attitude that made me vote no. I see no benefit in establishing a very intertwined relationship with a corrupt country that will need a lot help to become stable again. [/QUOTE] The association agreement does not mean Ukraine will join the EU. The association agreement will help Ukraine fight corruption. Do you want Ukraine to stay corrupt or is this more of a "fuck off we're full" mentality you have here? [QUOTE=Mega1mpact;50086636]This would require a massive reform, you can't just do that with a trade treaty that says "oh and btw please be less corrupt"[/QUOTE] It'll be rather beneficial for the long term.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50086317]The treaty actually says that Ukraine can ask for financial support from [I]existing mechanisms[/I], which Ukraine was already able to do before this treaty. The EU is going to send some other extra money to help get some of the targets of the treaty become a reality, but the treaty itself doesn't require the EU to do that, the EU just wants to help Ukraine. 1. Also almost all of those are problems with our government, not the EU. 2. A lot of members of parlement, including the leader of one of the two parties that form the current government coalition, have said that they would not ignore the referendum, and that it should be taken seriously. 3. Let's leave out the part where the EU would help Ukraine improve human rights in the country, fight corruption, etc, etc. 4. But why not help them become less corrupt? That is one of the targets of this treaty. Um, that is because there is currently [I]no[/I] combined EU effort to fight terrorism, not because the EU wouldn't be able to fight terrorism. The indivual countries have to handle all that shit themselves at the moment, and the fact that Abdeslam was able to hide there for so long was because of fundamental flaws with the Belgian police, mistakes, as well as a few other factors. For this reason people are calling for a combined EU effort against terrorism. 5. Yeah man fuck Euromaidan let's not help them at all after they made their president resign because they wanted to have a closer relation to us. 6. Except several major EU countries don't want Ukraine to join, which keeps Ukraine from joining. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] 7. I did not vote, first and foremost, because the people that made the referendum happen lied about what the referendum was about. Hell they didn't even lie, they publically said they didn't give a fuck about this treaty. I was going to vote yes, until that happened.[/QUOTE] I numbered your answers for easier reading. 1. Because ignoring the wishes of Brussels will no doubt lead to greener pastures. /s Why would that not be a good reason to vote no, so that we can first get our own government in order? 2. It is odd that you aren't sceptical of what our current coalition says. Have you forgetten the Bonnetjes debacle and how Fred Teeven is now back in the Tweede Kamer? Or how about the PVDA that has been very anti-military in the past, but has made some very interesting choices after being elected? 3, 4 and 5. Why should we help the Ukraine specifically? Should we be helping every country that is in a bad place? 6. "Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20 to 25 years, and not of NATO either," he said in a speech at The Hague. - Juncker but, While Juncker did not explain why Ukraine would have to wait so long, his speech was aimed at reassuring Dutch voters that this year's free-trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU was not a first step toward quickly joining the European Union. It seems to me that it is also implied by our own government to go for EU membership according to this document: [url]https://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fzoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl%2Fkst-34116-3.html&edit-text=&act=url[/url] Het akkoord is het meest verstrekkende en diepgaande associatieakkoord dat werd getekend tussen de EU en een derde land. Het doel is het verwezenlijken van politieke associatie, gebaseerd op gedeelde waarden, en economische integratie, waarbij Oekraïne uiteindelijk deel moet gaan uitmaken van de interne markt van de EU. The agreement is the most reaching and profound associating agreement that has ever been signed by the EU with another country. The goal is to establish political association, based on shared values, economic integration, where Ukraine ultimately will be a part of the EU's internal market. Excuse me, for remaining a little bit sceptical again. 7. That was said by one of the organisations that started the push for the referendum, not all of them. Even IF all the organisations wanted it to be about the EU, the referendum is STILL about the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. The spokespersons for the NO side have explained in several ways why they agree with the assocation agreement, it wasn't only limited to ''meh indepedence''. Staying home because you think the organizers are liars, doesn't make anything better. It is still a valid referendum. [QUOTE=Ghost656;50086644]The association agreement does not mean Ukraine will join the EU. The association agreement will help Ukraine fight corruption. Do you want Ukraine to stay corrupt or is this more of a "fuck off we're full" mentality you have here? It'll be rather beneficial for the long term.[/QUOTE] It does mean it will join the EU, that is very clear for everything I have read. It's not if, it's when. What do you propose we do with Greece, Syria or even North Korea? Do you specifically have a bleeding heart syndrome for Ukraine or it is more a ''Come hither, there's place for everyone'' mentality you have here?

With only a 33% turnout, how can you safely say the country's people are truly against it? 2/3rds of a third of the country said no... [QUOTE=thejjokerr;50085217][img]http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/zoeterrmeerklootzakken.jpg[/img] Translation: "A voting ballot in which the choice regarding the vote is made noticeable by filling the entire box with red pencil is invalid. The law requires the white dot to be coloured in whole or partially, in the case shown below this is not the case."[/QUOTE] That is six kinds of ridiculous.

Personally I'm not an opponent of the EU-Ukraine deal but the salt from the pro-side on social networks is hilarious. Basically, a lot of people in favour of the deal decided not to vote because they hoped the turnout would be less than 30%, making the referendum invalid. Turnout turned out to be 35% and now they're crying that the referendum is non democratic/populist bogus. Not completely untrue, but extrememly ironic considering they were trying to manipulate a democratic process. The referendum was not populair on the political left at all, a lot of people suddenly started to state that referendums have no place in a representative democracy, while simultaneously whining that the current government isn't remotely ruling like they promised to do. I feel sorry for Ukraine but I'm happy our test with direct-democracy turned out to be a succes, atleast our administration will have some support of the Dutch populace now. Altough I was in favour of the deal I can live with this.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50086746]With only a 33% turnout, how can you safely say the country's people are truly against it? 2/3rds of a third of the country said no... That is six kinds of ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Because there was a huge push to emphasize how ridiculous this referendum was, a part of the yes voters stayed home (''tactical'') and I think a lot of people just don't give a shit or didn't want to walk/drive extra since there were less voting booths than usual. The turn-out for the European elections was only 37.2, which kind of shows you how concerned the Dutch people are with stuff abroad.

I voted no. I'm sick of people talking to me like I did it because I support the PVV (very right populist anti-EU party), which I don't support. I support the SP, which also recommended its followers to vote no. I am aware of the economic boost the EU can give so I'm not anti-EU, but I think you ruin that boost by bringing corrupt and unstable countries into the mix

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50086732]I numbered your answers for easier reading. 1. Because ignoring the wishes of Brussels will no doubt lead to greener pastures. /s Why would that not be a good reason to vote no, so that we can first get our own government in order? 2. It is odd that you aren't sceptical of what our current coalition says. Have you forgetten the Bonnetjes debacle and how Fred Teeven is now back in the Tweede Kamer? Or how about the PVDA that has been very anti-military in the past, but has made some very interesting choices after being elected? 3, 4 and 5. Why should we help the Ukraine specifically? Should we be helping every country that is in a bad place? 6. "Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20 to 25 years, and not of NATO either," he said in a speech at The Hague. - Juncker but, While Juncker did not explain why Ukraine would have to wait so long, his speech was aimed at reassuring Dutch voters that this year's free-trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU was not a first step toward quickly joining the European Union. It seems to me that it is also implied by our own government to go for EU membership according to this document: [url]https://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fzoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl%2Fkst-34116-3.html&edit-text=&act=url[/url] Het akkoord is het meest verstrekkende en diepgaande associatieakkoord dat werd getekend tussen de EU en een derde land. Het doel is het verwezenlijken van politieke associatie, gebaseerd op gedeelde waarden, en economische integratie, waarbij Oekraïne uiteindelijk deel moet gaan uitmaken van de interne markt van de EU. The agreement is the most reaching and profound associating agreement that has ever been signed by the EU with another country. The goal is to establish political association, based on shared values, economic integration, where Ukraine ultimately will be a part of the EU's internal market. Excuse me, for remaining a little bit sceptical again. 7. That was said by one of the organisations that started the push for the referendum, not all of them. Even IF all the organisations wanted it to be about the EU, the referendum is STILL about the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. The spokespersons for the NO side have explained in several ways why they agree with the assocation agreement, it wasn't only limited to ''meh indepedence''. Staying home because you think the organizers are liars, doesn't make anything better. It is still a valid referendum. It does mean it will join the EU, that is very clear for everything I have read. It's not if, it's when. What do you propose we do with Greece, Syria or even North Korea? Do you specifically have a bleeding heart syndrome for Ukraine or it is more a ''Come hither, there's place for everyone'' mentality you have here?[/QUOTE] 1. One can fix problems in their own country while there are also other matters. 2. I see no point in lying about taking the results of the referendum seriously [B]after[/B] the results are in. 6. Whether you believe what our government or the EU-top says is up to you. Fact is, the country doesn't meet the Copenhagen criteria, doesn't even have the status of potential candidate-memberstate (which means it hasn't even requested to be part of the EU), and Ukraine itself is divided about whether it actually wants to be a part of the EU. Ukraine could become part of the EU without an assocation treaty, if they want. 7. While GeenPeil has become the face of the referendum, the Burgercomité are the actual initiators of the referendum, and the chairman of that committee said, and I quote: [I]"We obviously couldn't care less about Ukraine, you have to understand that."[/I] He continues: [I]"A Nexit-referendum is not possible at the moment. That is why we take all possible opportunities to strain the relation between the EU and the Netherlands."[/I] Bart Nijman, editor of GeenStijl and a main driving force behind the GeenPeil campaign, said this: [I]"That whole treaty with the Ukraine doesn't interest me that much."[/I] [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50086732] Staying home because you think the organizers are liars, doesn't make anything better. It is still a valid referendum. [/QUOTE] I never said it wasn't a valid referendum. I said I thought it was a stupid referendum because to the organisers it clearly wasn't actually about Ukraine. I chose not to vote, I have the right to do that.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50087231]1. One can fix problems in their own country while there are also other matters. 2. I see no point in lying about taking the results of the referendum seriously [B]after[/B] the results are in. 6. Whether you believe what our government or the EU-top says is up to you. Fact is, the country doesn't meet the Copenhagen criteria, doesn't even have the status of potential candidate-memberstate (which means it hasn't even requested to be part of the EU), and Ukraine itself is divided about whether it actually wants to be a part of the EU. Ukraine could become part of the EU without an assocation treaty, if they want. 7. While GeenPeil has become the face of the referendum, the Burgercomité are the actual initiators of the referendum, and the chairman of that committee said, and I quote: "We obviously couldn't care less about Ukraine, you have to understand that". He continues: "A Nexit-referendum is not possible at the moment. That is why we take all possible opportunities to strain the relation between the EU and the Netherlands." Bart Nijman, editor of GeenStijl and a main driving force behind the GeenPeil campaign, said this: 'That whole treaty with the Ukraine doesn't interest me that much'[/QUOTE] 1. You do know that's an impossible take, right? How can you change decision making when you are being told to make decisions right at that moment? 2. Like the bonnetjes affaire, right? 6. Greece. 7. I already explained that, you are being very stubborn. It does not change the subject of the referendum, you wanted to vote about the subject yourself. To make an analogy, we have a ship that is taking in water and is staying afloat with pumps that remove the water. The captain decides instead of fixing his boat in the harbour, he takes a shipment of extra good and continues his journey. Can you explain to me why you want the assocation agreement, is it because of the situation in Ukraine and you want to send aid to all the other countries in the world that need assistance? Follow up, how do you the future of the European Union? [QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;50087231][editline]7th April 2016[/editline] I never said it wasn't a valid referendum. I said I thought it was a stupid referendum because to the organisers it clearly wasn't actually about Ukraine. I chose not to vote, I have the right to do that.[/QUOTE] You are rustling my jimmies here, you said you were initially voting yes. You had an informed opinion about the assocation agreement that the referendum was about. It is a referendum, who cares if a donkey was the initiator of it? Let's say you hate the CDA, but they are proposing a law that would be the best thing since a long time. Would you oppose it simply because of your hatred?

I highly doubt anyone actually cares here, no one can grasp the thing what this is all about, No one here actually aware how dangerous games we are playing by signing up for euroskepticism, The dutch shown their middle finger to Ukraine basically, I think they should be immensely ashamed, It wasn't the Netherlands that had to endure the rule of communism after the end of the second world war, You guys missed out on so much, you can't grasp it at all, neither most brit can not understand it, The dutch, with this vote, basically told all Ukrainians that they want them to live like animals, Tied to their cage, starved for freedom, starved for those rights that us Europeans safeguard as our fundamental rights, Wouldn't you want a little freedom after years of grinding humiliation that you have to live like a bitch? Russia's bitch? Oh no, other will argue you'll be Brussels' bitch in the long run. Does anybody really believe this? Dutch voters who wanted to vote yes but didn't go, should be ashamed more then those who went and cast no. (not just) Thousands of Hungarian students rose up during the 1956 revolution, it wasn't because we wanted to become nazis or play fucking Call of Duty on the streets of Budapest and in the meantime get gunned down by Russian tanks that were dispatched from Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians didn't flee the country for no reason or to live off the income of other people. Neither thousands of East Germans left their homes when in 1989 when Hungary opened its borders towards the west, those people went because they just couldn't take it anymore. Russia forcefully took over Crimea, constantly sends its own troops into the Donetsk region, they are targeting Syrian Rebels constantly whom they proclaimed as 'terrorists' while leaving DAESH to continue to operate, just to destabilize Europe. When people going to finally have a reality check on their little brain and figure out that Russia is not and was never ever before a partner in legitimate peace? Do we really have to let it go till EU breaks up, then NATO breaks up and then you suddenly find your self brunt into the wall by nuclear flash? If we all want to just break up and start waging wars why don't we just start killing each other already? We going to die anyway with this speed that everyone supports mindless euroskeptics. Why put the inevitable into further suspense? Us, Europeans live a lot better lives then compared to those living in the US, Russia or China, all combined. [B]A greater european union is required in order to counter modern day threats that totalitarian regimes, for example Russia, pose towards us and others around us. All that Nigel Farage does in the EU parliament is take up space and air with his pitiful existence and constantly argue and argue about things that could finally advance our progress towards a better unification that can prevent problems like what happened in Greece. Without NATO we would be exposed to Russian aggression and it is not limited to Nuclear Strikes against any member state, one stupid agreement about not attacking countries without nukes is not a valid deterrent not to do so. But since NATO has nukes, Russia can use nukes against all of its members and target civilians indiscriminately. There is a valid reason why the Swiss have such a wast network of nuclear bunkers. Everyone have to realize, we have to stick together because we all are in this shit together and if we keep fighting about trivial things that disunite us we will never get out of this on top.[/B] If there won't be any real social change in Russia, we will still head for a collision course sometime in our lifetime, and yeah, it won't end nice, just with you, (potentially) [I]dead. The threat of a nuclear war become so constant ever since the Cold War that we can't take it seriously and because of this more people are inclined to think it will never happen, which is sadly not true.[/I]

[QUOTE=Soret;50092638]The dutch, with this vote, basically told all Ukrainians that they want them to live like animals, Tied to their cage, starved for freedom, starved for those rights that us Europeans safeguard as our fundamental rights,[/quote] come now, the Ukrainians have been excessively corrupt and incompetent after independence from Russia. while I don't deny Russia likes to intervene in Ukraine too much, the Ukrainian people already have the power to change things for the better - but they haven't had the best record of political and economic reform [quote]Us, Europeans live a lot better lives then compared to those living in the US, Russia or China, all combined.[/quote] most Europeans do live better off than the Russian peasantry (the big cities like Moscow and st Petersburg have European living standards though), but I find it bizarre you say that we live better off than the USA when with all things considered they don't live any worse than we do [quote]A greater european union is required in order to counter modern day threats that totalitarian regimes, for example Russia, pose towards us and others around us.[/QUOTE] the moskali don't pose a threat to Europe, more to themselves and their immediate neighbours. they're certainly not a totalitarian regime (considering that Russia has a kind of crude and corrupt democracy) - it's more anarchism with a strongman on the top holding it all together. after putin dies he'll be replaced with some ineffectual buffoon who'll either give in to the west or end up being outmatched by somebody whos even slightly cunning yeah Russia is aggressive and expansionist, but they aren't competent enough to win these wars anymore, and they don't really gain anything from them either. the urus-sheitan invade places like Dagestan and then spend trillions of rubles on trying to prevent it from going independent - it's much the same with crimea. it's a massive sunk-cost and while they gained a piece of land they ended up permanently losing the rest of Ukraine for good

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50092754]come now, the Ukrainians have been excessively corrupt and incompetent after independence from Russia. while I don't deny Russia likes to intervene in Ukraine too much, the Ukrainian people already have the power to change things for the better - but they haven't had the best record of political and economic reform[/QUOTE] So was Russia, literally every ex-soviet country after the independence was corrupt as shit. And Russia still is, the only difference is that Russia has a massive export of oil which helps their economy out. Ukraine doesn't have that. But you're completely forgetting the MAJOR influence on Ukraine from Russia, why do you think Russia got so worried and took Crimea and a part of East Ukraine after Yanukovich got kicked out of the country? They lost a big asset to keep Ukraine down, Yanukovich also made huge budget cuts in the military before that and you see exactly the reason why. There were plenty of other corrupt politicians which were influenced by Russia. Simply blaming the Ukrainians in this matter is pretty dumb, especially considering Russia has showed their intentions a while ago.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;50104656]So was Russia, literally every ex-soviet country after the independence was corrupt as shit. And Russia still is, the only difference is that Russia has a massive export of oil which helps their economy out. Ukraine doesn't have that. But you're completely forgetting the MAJOR influence on Ukraine from Russia, why do you think Russia got so worried and took Crimea and a part of East Ukraine after Yanukovich got kicked out of the country? They lost a big asset to keep Ukraine down, Yanukovich also made huge budget cuts in the military before that and you see exactly the reason why. There were plenty of other corrupt politicians which were influenced by Russia. Simply blaming the Ukrainians in this matter is pretty dumb, especially considering Russia has showed their intentions a while ago.[/QUOTE] latvia, lithuania, and estonia managed to reform their economies, political systems, and society in such a way that they've basically progressed into being first world (or nearly first world) countries with rapidly growing economies. the same is true for the former soviet bloc (poland, czech, etc). even the Kazakhs and others have done better by contrast, ukraines economy shrank for the first half of its existence and the political system did not improve whatsoever, and it's been either stagnant or marginally improving since then. as convenient as it is to blame problems on the moskali, the persistent stagnation, corruption, lack of economic and political reform, poor economic record, etc is as much to do with problems in ukraine as it does to the legacy of russia

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.