Tuesday 8 July 2008

Netherlands: Lisbon Treaty ratification 21

The Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament or the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) had approved the EU Treaty of Lisbon 5 June 2008 by an overwhelming majority, 111 against 39. From there the ratification bill went to the Senate.

Today, 8 July 2008, the indirectly elected Dutch First Chamber or Senate (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal) voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty.

Source NOS ‘Eerste Kamer akoord met EU-verdrag’:


The Dutch Senate vote concludes the parliamentary ratification process in the Netherlands, which becomes the 21st EU member state to approve the reform treaty.


The five remaining member states more or less on course are:

Belgium, with its manifold parliaments

The Czech Republic, a source of uncertainty and notably the next rotating EU Council president after France

Italy, where the new Berlusconi government after the elections has issued its ratification bill

Spain, where the Senate has yet to vote, but the Congress of Deputies voted a crushing 322 to 6 for approval

Sweden, with its slow timetable, where the government has issued its ratification bill only last week; notably the third EU Council president of the 18 month troika or trio: France, Czech Republic, Sweden

For details on dates and votes you can check for instance Wikipedia:



The sixth member state, off course, is ‘pro-European’ Ireland where the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a referendum.


Two questions to think about:

Has anyone found even one pro-European reason for the Irish ‘no’ vote?

Has anybody detected generally sustainable arguments for the use of national referenda?

Ralf Grahn


  1. "Has anyone found even one pro-European reason for the Irish ‘no’ vote?"

    Obviously the Irish wanted a "better deal" for Ireland AND Europe. Clearly it is up to those evil elites to figure out what this better deal is supposed to be.

  2. RZ,

    Considering that I recently looked up Libertas' web page, which had nothing new to offer, your ironic comment rings true.

    For me it has been hard to imagine how ignorance (stated reason number one), a permanent Irish Commissioner (as part of an oversized Commission), perpetuation of bans on abortion and tax harmonisation or reluctance to build a European defence are better deals for Europe (or even for Ireland).

  3. Actually, there is a strong pro-European case for Irish no vote.
    "Integrationist" states now have the excuse to build a new Eu based on "post-Lisbon acquis", while denouncing the old one. Thanks to Irish no, the other states can now reconsider the opportunity of sharing a union with such pro-european countries as Britain, Czech Republic and Ireland.
    One-sided love not being a very good one, eventually the time comes to give up and move on.

  4. Igor,

    Yes, the integrationist states could really set an example, but will they?

    Read the latest 'Clingendael' post.


Due deluge of spam comments no more comments are accepted.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.