The Dutch no vote in a referendum over the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine held on 6 April 2016 will not likely jeopardise the agreement itself. But it puts the EU’s credibility in the neighbourhood at risk, most likely kills off enlargement policy, and questions the EU’s ability to sign international treaties. By Iana Dreyer.
The EU is set to continue with business as usual in its dealings with Ukraine after the Dutch no vote in a non-binding referendum on the EU Ukraine Association Agreement on Wednesday (6 April). But the EU’s credibility as foreign policy player has been seriously dented. The bloc’s already very hesitant enlargement policy in the Balkans and Eastern Europe could be the biggest victim of the vote.
Javier Solana, the EU’s first foreign policy chief appointed in 2001 tweeted the no vote is “a failure” and “a brake on Ukraine-EU relations … the confirmation of an overall trend”. The EU’s Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker warned a no vote would trigger “a continental crisis” in a time of tensions with Russia. After the vote Juncker has remained silent – at least so far. A Commission spokesperson said he was “sad”.
The EU Ukraine agreement was the bone of contention that triggered the Ukraine crisis in late 2013. The deal covers large areas of policy ranging from human rights and rule of law to trade policy, competition law, industrial standards, and intellectual property rights. The trade pillar of the agreement came into force on a provisional basis in the EU in January 2016 this year. The deal is seen by its proponents as an instrument to help Ukraine reform its state and modernise its economy.
The Association Agreement is part of a wider web of EU-Ukraine relationships. These involve a bargain: Ukraine gets greater access to the EU and some aid money, in return for commitments to often difficult and unpopular policy reforms. Ukrainians are in the process of being granted the right to travel visa-free as tourists to the EU after a process of reform in its border control systems.
Though these agreements pick instruments from the policy toolbox used by the EU when it was preparing Central and Eastern Europe candidates to join the bloc in the 1990s and early 2000s, Brussels has not offered any prospect for Ukraine to join the EU so far.
The Association Agreement with Ukraine comes at an inauspicious time in the EU. Euroscepticism and populist movements rejecting foreigners, national elites, and the EU, are on the rise.
The Dutch vote is the result of a new law that allows citizens to initiate consultative referendums. It is the Dutch Eurosceptic platform GeenPeil that put the system to the test with the Ukraine deal. It gathered 470.000 signatures – much more than the 300.000 required by law to have the referendum held. To be valid, the vote needed a minimum 30 percent voter turnout. And it did, with an estimated 32 percent showing up at the voting booths. 64 percent of those who voted said ‘no’ to the Association deal.
Credibility failure
The Dutch referendum will not put in danger the Association Agreement with Ukraine. It is not legally binding on the government in Holland. The deal has already been ratified by all EU institutions and 27 other EU member states.
For the moment, the EU’s executive body, the Commission, is going on with business as usual. “It is foremost to the government of the Netherlands to analyse the outcome and decide on the course of action”, Margaritis Schinas, the EU Commission’s said. “The agreement is being provisionally applied by unanimous decision of the Council with the backing of all the 28 EU member states and there is no impact on this. The Commission remains strongly committed to the development of its relations with Ukraine”, the spokesman added.
The Dutch government, run by a coalition of centrists and social-democrats, will need to act on the referendum, although the prime minister Mark Rutte signalled it was not rushing into any conclusions. Carsten Nickel, Senior Vice President at the consultancy Teneo Intelligence, explains that “the Dutch government, is preparing for the general elections due by March 2017. [Populist leader Geert] Wilders is leading the polls at around 39%. The centrist government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte can therefore hardly afford to simply ignore a potential No.” Analysts believe some form of Dutch opt-out from some aspects of the Association Agreement with Ukraine could be one outcome of a political process that has only begun to unfold.
The prospect of more migrants arriving from Eastern Europe and of an already unlikely accession of Ukraine to the EU were key campaign arguments of the ‘no’ camp. Hence a potential victim of the referendum could be the ongoing visa liberalisation process for Ukraine. Daniel Capparelli, an analyst with the consultancy Global Counsel in London told BNE Intellinews: “Rutte will likely push for additional assurances from Brussels that the agreement may not be interpreted as a step towards EU membership, and a renewed commitment from Kyiv to accelerate the implementation pace of its reform program. This is essentially stating the obvious … while symbolically addressing the concerns of those who voted ‘no’”.
Rem Korteweg Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Reform, a think tank in London, told BNE Intellinews that membership perspective for neighbouring countries, be it Ukraine or Balkan countries, already unlikely, could become even more distant. “It is very likely that any enlargement decision will be subjected to a referendum, in the Netherlands or elsewhere, and rejected. The Dutch government will be very hesitant to agree to any enlargement in the current circumstances”, Korteweg explains.
Many have said the Dutch no vote is a win for Russia’s geopolitical game in Europe. CER’s Korteweg says “the outcome of the referendum will not immediately influence the EU’s relationship with Russia. But Russia will use the No vote as part of its narrative and say that obviously the European people agree that Ukraine is run by corrupt criminals. So doing, it helps the Kremlin to build support for its position in Europe.”
The Dutch referendum is revealing the flaws of the EU’s 2010 Lisbon Treaty, the fundamental rules setting out the functioning of the Union. The treaty gave for the first time the EU the requisite legal personality to sign international agreements. But its rules require many of these agreements to be ratified not only by the Council (the 28 member state governments represented in Brussels) and the EU Parliament. It also requires 28 member states to ratify the deal individually, when these agreements are association agreements, about enlargement, or deal with topics in which the EU shares competence with member states such as single market rules, energy, agriculture, or freedom, security and justice. Because most new international EU agreements touch upon these matters, just about any current international EU agreement under negotiation or awaiting ratification in the EU could be jeopardised.
No wonder Bruno Maçães, who was until recently Europe Minister of Portugal, tweeted that the Dutch referendum is “another nail in the EU’s foreign and trade policy coffin. With what credibility can it negotiate international agreements in the future?”.
