Holland rejects the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine and sends an important signal. 62% of voters said “no”, warning European governments about the already planned enlargement to the East, which at least as foreseen now by the Brussels bureaucracy, no longer seems possible.
Although the Atlantic winds hold back authoritative heads in the twentieth century, making them the edge of geopolitical schemes from the Cold War, someone tries to give signs of independence or at least to free themselves from the inclined plane of common feeling, along which the euthanasia of the Old Continent seems unstoppable. .
The referendum follows the ratification of the association agreement already perfected by the 28 governments of the Union and represents an awareness of the electoral mood for years oriented towards a rampant Euroscepticism, not only in Holland. Although the referendum appears to be an isolated consultation (only one third of those entitled to vote voted), it is indisputable that the tiles of a European roof that is little shared by the bottom, or at least so perceived, will be shaken.
In particular, the Dutch response is symptomatic of a difficult psychological condition in which the country lives. Victim of the francobelga syndrome as a potential victim of international terrorism and condemned by history to protect itself from bulky neighbors, from time to time Holland diverges from its vocation to modernity and renews the fear of the alien, whoever it is. It is a kind of tug-of-war, to which the chiefs there is on one side nature openminded congenital to the tulip society, on the other hand far from the air, afraid of being submerged and swept away.
On this basis, the "no" to the association agreement with Ukraine is the result of two aspects that are not easy to distinguish at present:
- a surge of native pride supported by the already strong position of Wilders nationalist right, presumably sensitive to the question of immigration and security;
- a real understanding of strategic suicide in which the European Union has now stuck with its policies towards the East.
The dose of the two ingredients is of little importance for now. The stop at the Brussels-Kiev axis, started quietly by the Union's nomenclatures according to non-shared rules, at this moment is a starting point for reflection both on the long-term effects of the agreement and on the legitimacy and legitimacy of the current government Ukraine.
In the first case, we take note of the consequences of an automatic forthcoming enlargement of the Union to Ukraine with an inevitable negative impact on relations with Moscow. The architecture of this path began with the Maidan revolt and the Crimean crisis; although the members of the Union have acted compactly, a continental strategic and geopolitical thought in this regard never seems to have been born. Perhaps it would be appropriate to start conceiving it and, if possible, to involve the respective public opinions.
On the state of things in Kiev, the reflection is even more profound. We should better understand what lies behind Poroshenko and how much good faith Europe of law and indignation can still show. A curtain of frost has fallen over the Ukrainian crisis for a year, leaving pressure groups on the Ukrainian government to consolidate. Nobody talks about it, but it's not new.
Despite the British referendum on staying in Europe is upon us, in all likelihood the Dutch vote will put fear without particular effects. He will be suffocated by the machine of democratic imposition, very quick to talk about himself, much less to tell people what he thinks.
(Photo: web)
