Poll: Nederland verwerpt EU-grondwet 1-06-05
Nederland heeft de Europese grondwet verworpen met 63 tegen 37 procent. De opkomst bij het referendum bedroeg 62 procent. Dat blijkt uit een exit-poll van Interview/NSS in opdracht van de NOS en het ANP
[Eerste poll]
http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2005/6/1/010605_referendum_vandaag.html
The Netherlands rejected the treaty with 63% against - to 37% for.
Turnout 62%
[First poll]
Are you seriously contending that Africa’s problems are a direct result of a lack of centralised power?
The problems are pre-existing, but national divisions are certainly an impediment to solving them, yes. What do you do when a corrupt military dictator takes over a country and there’s no higher authority to appeal to? If there were only one military force in the region, there’d be no wars beause there’d be no one to fight. (Constitution, democracy, rule of law, make sure all that’s in place.) Economically, the region would be able to pool its resources and forestall some of the more questionable schemes.
The US is already a regional federation and a highly successful one. I had hoped that Europe–scene of some of the worst wars in history–was ready to provide its own example in the cause of Making the World a Better Place, but the French let us down. If the devil was in the details, fine, but stability lies in unity, not divisiveness and xenophobia.
I’d say that pretty obviously is a problem which cannot be dealt with at a local democratic level, because local democracy has plainly been circumvented. How this disproves the assertion that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level in a functioning democracy is beyond me. You are talking about peacekeeping, we (with reference to the EU) are talking about democratic decision-making, two entirely different things. I don’t see how a unified European parliament being given jurisdiction over large chunks of my life has anything to do with the prevention of war; that has been achieved by the nations of Europe being stable, liberal democracies in their own right, and has nothing whatsoever to do with creating a federal Europe.
Er, okay. Just for starters, and completely ignoring the tiny matter of how on earth you get all those despots to just stop fighting and all join a common army and be nice, don’t you think that, say, a position of supreme military power over the entirety of Africa might not be just a teensy bit attractive to some of those despots with private armies that are knocking around? How do you propose setting up a United States of Africa without first solving its problems? I suppose they’re all going to just disappear? How? You handwave at democracy and the rule of law as if these were piffling matters that can trivially be sorted out before we get to continental unity as the real solution, completely ignoring that these are in fact the very foundations of a stable society in the first place. I simply can’t see how you think a monolithic central government offers any sort of solution to Africa’s problems, when they would all require solving before a government of the sort you describe could even be considered. And I don’t see how you can contend that these problems will ever be solved from the top down without first solving them at a local level. Finally, I really don’t see how you can think that the more people you make decisions for, the better those decisions become.
If you’re saying that a centralised government isn’t achievable until everything’s hunky-dory at a local level, then fine - I quite agree. But you seem to be going further, and saying that by establishing one, everything at a local level becomes hunky-dory. This is thinking more wishful than asking Santa at the mall for a pony.
Condescend much?
Lowest appropriate level. Again, I’m using the US as a model of a near-perfect regional federation. We conduct foreign policy, field a military and guarentee civil rights on a federal level.
If you were a Bosnian Muslim in the 1990’s you wouldn’t have minded a unified European parliment having jurisdiction over you life, not to mention all the military forces in the area.
Can I get you to agree that the existance of these despots underscores the need for a unified Africa?
It’s much easier for an authoritarian regime to take over a small country in a backwater region than a large, diverse constitutional republic that the whole world has been watching. Checks and balances, baby. Would-be dictators need political support. If a guy from Sudan wanted to sieze power in (our imaginary) African government, how much support would he get in Nigeria, South Africa, etc?
Very carefully, that’s how. There is a lot of support for pan-Africanism in the region. Of course the obstacles are all-but-insurmountable; of course it would take a long time, but the World isn’t going anywhere, is it? The African Union has already been following in the footsteps of the EU. That the Europeans went so far as to vote on a region-wide constitution is a spectacular vindication of my position. That it’s being rejected is a disappointing setback, but in Europe there’s an ‘if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it’ thing going on. Africa is broken. The severity of its problems are an impetus for radical reform. And there’s not a strong a sense of national identity since the borders were drawn by the colonial powers (tribal identity OTOH, is a major factor). Still, we might have to go so far as to divide countries like Sudan and Chad, with the southern half going to the United States of Africa and the northern half going to the United States of Arabia ( :eek: or whatever. Lets not go there just yet except to say, Step 1: establish democracy in Iraq).
Coalitions of African nations (under the AU or not) have already been intervening in places like Liberia and Darfur. If enough democratic AU states support the idea, they could form an alliance and intervene one-by-one in those states where there is enough unionist support among the population.
How many times do I have to point to The United States of America as an example of what you say is impossible. The British, slavery, racial discrimination, and Al Capone were problems that were solved by the Feds because the Good Guys did not have enough power at the local level. Injustice at a local level is easier to hide from scrutiny. The US government is the most intensely scrutinized government in the World. A region under a unified, prominent government gives the Bad Guys nowhere to hide.
Maybe, but we are talking about saving the World, here. Too bad the French put a stop to that.
What would be the political and cultural characteristics of this “human”?
Funny, I was thinking of the USA too, with its careful delineation of Federal and State powers being a decent example of the very principle I was espousing. And I don’t recall the USA being formed by getting the States to join a nebulous and ill-defined union, then expected to ratify continuing upwards appropriation of power. No, the States voluntarily (something like with the French referendum, maybe?) joined a Union which made very clear which powers were ceded to the federal government, and which were left to the States. As I’ve demonstrated above, I don’t think there is any such delineation contained within the constitution the French and now the Dutch have rejected, which is precisely why I oppose it.
I am not. I am a citizen of a modern, liberal and stable democracy, and I see no reason to dilute the power of my democratic voice in the name of preventing a civil war I see no prospect for whatsoever. If I had been a Bosnian Muslim in the 1990’s, I would be able to inform you that my nation had no hope of joining the EU, because it only lets in those nations with a modern, stable and liberal (or liberalising) democracy, something which was patently not true of my region at the time. I could further point out that the war in that region was in fact ended, and the area returned to a semblance of peacefulness, despite the notable non-presence of an EU constitution (although I guess at 450 pages it could conceivably have been used as body armour). I also note that your wishful thinking continues concerning the apparently magical obedience of despots and power-grabbers when faced with an edict from the EU. These people have no compunction in ignoring their local rules and starting wars, why are they powerless in the face of objections from France? And why did they agree to cede so much power to the EU in the first place, since power is what they seek for themselves? You haven’t answered any of these questions.
You can get me to agree that African cooperation will undoubtedly be helpful in removing them; you can’t get me to agree that this a) requires an overarching continental legislative government, or b) has anything to do with the specifics of the rejected EU constitution, because it plainly doesn’t. It is a red herring of the smelliest order. Look, if you’d like to start a thread about Africa’s problems, and how they could all be solved by central government, please do - however at this point the subject is verging on hijack territory, and I’m not going to respond to further points about it.
What I am trying to say is that we already have peacekeeping institutions, and that I am quite happy with the existence of such. What I am not happy with is the formalisation of a legislative body with practically unlimited constitutional powers over me, despite my democratic voice in its operation being remote in the extreme. You can continue to talk about peacekeeping operations all you like, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the objections to the EU constitution, or the principles and benefits of subsidiarity. The EU constitution proposed does not purport to be a tool in the prevention of war - it is only possible because we are not presently having wars.
Er, weren’t the first two solved by wars (loosely speaking) and the third by examining the established bounds of government as written into the Constitution? (hey, there’s a parallel…)
Hey, I can deal in massive oversimplification too, check it out: “Small jurisdictions make the Bad Guys stand out more!”, or possibly “Enormous jurisdictions contain more opportunities for Bad Guys!”. Go me. Can you actually justify your assertion, or are we just going to trade slogans like this all day? While we’re talking about crime-fighting, though, I thought I should mention that here in the UK we’ve had our own share of crooks, some of them really quite nasty, and we somehow managed to put them away, without the EU having to step in and help us. How’d we manage it? Was it just the anticipation of a European Constitution 40 years later that put steel in our backs, or was it because actually, centralisation doesn’t make it any easier to fight crime? Who, exactly, are the current-day crooks that the EU simply can’t track down without a 450-page treatise defining the voting procedures in the European Parliament? What is the crime-fighting problem that it solves?
I’m sorry? Please, please tell me you’re kidding. Right? This is the most farcically hyperbolic statement I’ve read all week, and I’ve read a lot of crap in the press about how this is practically doomsday for the EU. Really? The French have put a stop to saving the world, by failing to give the EU near total jurisdiction over, say, our tourism industries, or our transport networks, or our fisheries, or our energy policy, or our consumer protection, ad infinitum? Lawks, I imagine those African dictators will be right on over as soon as they find out.
If I lived in France I would have voted no as well. I won’t go so far as saying that I believe all government decisions should be pushed to the lowest possible level, but to understand what’s going on here you have to realise how the French view themselves. American and English media have lately been full of stories about how horrible everything is in France, what with 10% unemployment, a huge welfare state, and heavy regulation. But the fact of the matter is that the French people like having their economy organized in that way, even if it means less wealth for everybody. They like the 35 hour week, the powerful unions, and all the rest. To them the alternative is to get stuck in a cycle, like American workers are, that always pushes towards longer work weeks and thus less time to actually enjoy life.
Contrary to what some in the media say, life in France is not going to hell in a handbasket. Anyone who’s spent a few months there recently can testify that for the average native-born French citizen, life is still pretty good. Crime is low in most neighborhoods, streets are clean, public transit works, lots of high-quality food and other stuff are readily available to everyone. And many view all this as under threat if authority is handed away to a higher level, even if there are vague promises not to infrince on local issues.
Well if the only response from people to that statement is “how condescending”, rather than showing me I’m wrong, then condescending I must be. &(*&^$ me, but I’m estimating 5% voted “No” because they have a clue what they’re talking about. I mean, probably a majority would vote to get rid of the Euro again.
The only un-condescending comment I can make is that maybe many “Yes” voters don’t really have a clue either.
But seriously, the “No” vote was dumb. Hopefully something good comes out of it, though. It seems that the Swiss are getting used to the Referendum thing, they have lots of them, and perhaps that’s the solution in getting people interested and becoming more responsible.
And maybe they’d be right to. You are being condescending (quite amazingly so, in fact), and frankly your assertion that people voted “no” because they’re stupid isn’t one that deserves rebutting; it’s incumbent upon those proposing such a major document to establish why it’s a good idea. It has been shown that there are substantial quite reasonable motives for rejecting the constitution, and even if you disagree with those motives, you could at least have the courtesy to allow that maybe there’s some rationale there. People have given you a great many responses to your blithe assertions of constitutional greatness, which you have completely ignored in preference to simply repeating that those who disagree with you must be stupid. Don’t let me stop you, though, as it’s precisely this attitude that caused this referendum to be lost in the first place. Vive la arrogance, sez me.
Your faith in the democratic principle is admirable. Perhaps we should just go and enact the constitution anyway, since these uppity peasants plainly don’t know what’s good for them?
Oh, “seriously”? Well then, that settles it. Say, did you ever get around to rebutting my points about the notable lack of subsidiarity in the constitution? It seemed like you rather ignored the whole point that there is in fact no binding commitment to it.
Uh? For one thing, the Swiss aren’t part of the EU. For another, Swiss politics as I understand it has been heavily referendum- and consent-based for quite some time; hardly “getting used to the Referendum thing,” as you put it. I don’t really see how the French referendum or the EU constitution have much to do with the Swiss, or their democratic processes. Perhaps you mean that if the French have enough referenda, they’ll start voting “right”?
Yep, but that was a new concept to many; in the Netherlands this was the first national referendum ever (in 200 years anyway).
I do allow for some rationale, it’s just that most of them have nothing to do with this treaty.
Show me. Even my normally very mild mother on the phone yesterday told me that she couldn’t help but feel that people had been voting no for very … let’s put this kindly … not-quite-to-the-point reasons.
Especially people who do not trust the government, should be able to properly second-guess them on their own. The only other alternative that has been shown, voting on a whim, is not acceptable. The only proper defense here would have been that people are not used to a referendum in the first place, because …
… this is pretty much the first one in 200 years in this country.
I did in a post not far upwards.
That last sentence is exactly what I meant.
I’m pretty sure the average Dutch citizen is capable of answering a straight question. In fact, I’m pretty sure they did. Even assuming you’re right, and the concept of a referendum is simply too much for their little brains, what makes your desired outcome the “right” one? How do I know that you are so capable of expressing your opinion - are you more than 200 years old?
Maybe the point can’t be expected to be a line-by-line dissection of the constitution. If you give a population their first undiluted chance to express an opinion on probably the second most important political entity affecting their lives, you should really expect them to base their opinions on matters a little more wide-ranging than you might hope.
Voting on a flipping whim? Here you go again. What evidence do you have, apart from a telephone conversation with your dear ol’ Ma, that people have been voting on a whim? Opinion polls showed a no vote for a long time before the Netherlands voted; hardly indicative of a whim to me. Fully two thirds of your country voted against the constitution, I remind you. If even half of them put a bit of thought into their vote, then they would still be ahead of the “yes” voters. “Not acceptable”? You sound like you’re talking to a naughty child who’s done something wrong. Can’t you see how hectoring people into agreeing with you just doesn’t work?
Or, y’know, that they actually had genuine objections that they wanted to express, a consideration you continue to ignore. Your insistence that this verdict is the result of stupidity or incomprehension is an exhibition of your denial. The argument over the constitution was lost. In many cases, it wasn’t even made in the first place.
Nope, you a) denied it, b) said I “didn’t understand” the text, and then pasted the precise section I had referred to. None of this constitutes a rebuttal, I’m afraid. I would like you to specifically address just how firm a commitment to subsidiarity is expressed by the phrase “take account of reasoned opinions”. It is my position that there is no commitment there whatsoever, since the text itself states that the legislative bodies can completely ignore those reasoned opinions if they so choose. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
Well, that says it all then, really. If this attitude is typical of the EU political elite, then I am exceedingly glad that the present crisis has arisen. I’ve never seen such outright contempt for the electorate backed up with so little justification. I can’t imagine how you must feel at general elections, with all these peons being allowed their voice.
A straight question? You’re the first to call this that.
The concept is not too much, I said no such thing. Just not used to it. So far they haven’t had to think about Europe for themselves, and the percentage of people voting on the European elections confirms they hadn’t, to this point, really cared all that much.
But that’s not what the referendum was about. But perhaps they successfully made it so, and that’s a good thing. Who knows.
Nitpick, but it was 61.6%, so that’s not quite true.
I’m not hectoring people - I did no such thing before the referendum, as I’ve said before, and now that the elections are over, I’m entitled to express my disappointment. I read countless of reports in newspapers and magazines interviewing people who voted no and why, and you know my conclusion. I’ll be happy to translate a few of them for you here.
There wasn’t an argument. The government (with whom you seem to like to group me, which I detest) did a lousy job in informing the public, and the public did a lousy job in informing themselves. End-result: we’re screwed. Ah well. I’m going to trust that the inevitable will happen and that the much-needed EU reform won’t be delayed too much. Probably a lot of the essential points of the treaty will now be implemented one by one through the European Parliament or something. But I’m still angry with the “No” voters. I don’t mind losing arguments, Dead Badger, in fact, I love losing arguments, as long as the winning side of the argument is also right.
And then I wrote this, to which you didn’t reply. But despite your high-horse hautainity towards my humble, disgruntled little person, you are debating me here with less substance than a hot-air balloon.
I have little to add to my last post on this subject.
EU political elite … sigh. You’re a … oh no, wait, we’re not in the pit. And as a matter of fact, at the general elections a fair few voters have been making a fool of themselves also.
Again though, that’s not to say that I think the politicians have been doing a great job, on the contrary. Learning to communicate and interact with the voting public is clearly the most important lesson that has been learnt in these recent years. And our political system does allow for a lot of dynamic in that respect.
Your general contention is clear. You seem intent to lump me into a huddle with a certain political elite you dispise. I’m not going to play. This treaty, despite some imperfections, was a clear improvement, with the right intentions at heart. But people just felt out of control, and felt the “No” was the best way to regain control. Perhaps they were right, but while they figure it out, I’d rather have had the new treaty to cover the meanwhile. It’s an expensive lesson they have chosen to learn. Hopefully it is worth it.
Anticipating what you were about to call me, I can assure you I’m not; I’m actually quite an enthusiastic European, and would like nothing more than a large, pluralistic and generally liberal Europe, with cooperation where appropriate, and freedom of movement and trade between countries. I just don’t want one that subsumes the basic sovereignty of its members, and I don’t believe it’s alarmist to describe the rejected constitution as doing that. One of the most frustrating things for me about this whole constitutional debacle is that I’ve found myself pushed more and more towards the sort of language that anti-European twonks such as UKIP and the like are wont to use. I hate it, but the horrible fact of the matter is that there’s a kernel of truth in their xenophobic and reverse-snobbish ranting. The very unfortunate fact is that large swathes of the EU bureaucracy are best characterised by the term “political elite”. There is little attempt to genuinely connect with the people they are meant to be serving, and even less attempt to communicate what is actually being done. Voters are simply presented with a fait accompli, bestowed from above as manna from heaven, and if we don’t like it then we’re “stupid”, or “anti-progress” (or even, in an extreme example from earlier in this thread, preventing the salvation of the Earth). As I’ve pointed out before, and you agreed to an extent, there really isn’t much dialogue going on between the people and those in power in the EU, and that isn’t the fault of the people.
Okay, since you want to dissociate yourself from the central pols, I’m happy to do so too. You’ve taken the stick in this thread because, to be honest, your statements have rather typified the attitude I’ve seen exhibited by the likes of Barroso, Santer and others in recent weeks, but I accept that you aren’t them. Plus, I’m in a severely irritable mood having got three hours sleep the last couple of nights, so if I’ve been a bit over the top I apologise.
But we already have one - to have voted yes would have been taken as a clear endorsement of the EU project as a whole, with all the present goals and intentions. You complain that people made their decisions on broader matters than the constitution alone, but you cannot deny that a yes vote would have been given considerably more weight than just a brief consultation on the procedural matters contained in the constitution. The no vote has demanded pause for thought, it has not ended the EU. A yes vote would have represented lock-in. In a union in which most people are unsure about the precise aims, their democratic rights, and what the implications of the new constitution would be, surely it’s in fact by far the most prudent course of action to vote no. If the constitution really was the small tidying-up exercise it was made out to be, then its rejection is in reality no big deal - the EU has managed up to now. And if they wanted a period of reflection from their governments, then the rejection is perhaps the only method they had of calling for it. The constitution does not exist in a vacuum, and people are entitled to use their votes in the manner they deem most fitting, even if that entails “sending a message”, rather than answering the bald question on the ballot.
Regarding your earlier post (which I missed somehow, sorry), I agree that the role of the ECJ is a mollifying factor, but it still doesn’t address the basic issue that the appropriation of powers is left fundamentally at the discretion of the EU institutions. I am a million miles away, democratically speaking, from the process by which ECJ judges are appointed, and it hasn’t been made clear by what principles questions of subsidiarity will be judged, if and when they are judged. As for the quantitative justification of the subsidiarity question, colour me skeptical. Take the proposed EU-wide harmonisation of working hours (to combat unfair labour market competition, say the French). It could probably be demonstrated that to have a globally enforced working hours policy would benefit many nations with less flexible labour markets, by making everyone less flexible. Sounds great - the economic utility for several members of the EU might go up, passing the subsidiarity test, but ignoring the fact that the EU’s competitiveness as a whole could be harmed. At the basic level, it is made the EU’s remit to decide what powers are appropriated, and I don’t think that is ideal. While I do think there are some areas of competence in which EU-wide action is beneficial (I have no real problem with the areas of exclusive competence, for example), I do think that the effective removal of veto powers on the other areas of competence is a good move. If agreement can’t be reached, then it should be left to member states to find the best policy for their citizens on their own.
Generally a low turnout in an election is taken as an indicator of the poor quality of those on offer, not as a condemnation of an indolent public. And given that high turnout would again be taken as an endorsement of the “ever closer union”, it’s hardly surprising that people vote by staying at home. This is what I mean by the lack of democratic connection. If I vote in my own country’s general elections, there is a noticeable outcome - somebody wins, public policy noticeably changes. If I vote for my MEP, there is practically no detectable change in the operation of the EU; my vote has essentially been an endorsement of the whole shebang (unless I vote for a nit-wit like Kilroy in the UK, or le Pen in France, which people have increasingly been doing). The very disconnect between voters and the EU is what means MEP elections are not a useful opportunity for voters to express their opinion of the EU. Added to which, the virtual monoculture within the EU’s bureaucracy polarises the debate, to the point where it is virtually impossible to have a sensible argument about what the Union should be, only about whether it should be anything at all. I think the French and Dutch votes have forced the former question on to the agenda, and I think that is an invaluable thing.
Fair enough. Fortunately, many people here also at least still see the economic benefits - often because for their work they’re in more direct contact with Europe. You seem to go further than that, even, which is good to hear.
I guess that’s where we agree most substantially then. I still think that the new treaty draws the lines a lot more clearly, and that the statement in there that clearly says that the EU may and should only act on a European level where it can be clearly stated to be beneficial, gives ample means to put the burden of proof where it belongs. Right now, we just have to wait and see what political trade-off will result in what new law. But under the new treaty, we’d be able to fundamentally question each new EU level regulation in court.
Then we’ve both allowed ourselves to be pushed into further extremes than we’d otherwise be wont to.
This is understandable, but my main objection here is that the new treaty at least has some steps towards addressing this. The one million autograph rule, for instance, that allows a trade union, or an organisation like Greenpeace to put an item on the European agenda, would have resulted for the first time in European initiatives coming from the people and would have resulted in a much better participation. It is a step that goes further into involving the people more than many national parliaments do, and I actually think that the failure of political Europe can be at least partially blamed on the national politicians. They’ve often played the game of ‘it’s not my fault, it’s Europe’. Or, in our country, ‘I didn’t raise the prices, the euro did’.
Absolutely accepted. And I can certainly understand you’d categorise me in that area.
I won’t rule that out, but still think that the way the new EU Treaty has been set up, in no small part thanks to the Brittish, would have been a more constructive road to the same goal. There’s a certain irony in both rejecting the treaty because of dissatisfaction with the national governments, and a fear that those national governments lose too much power to the EU, but I can see how the two fears are related - if national politicians suck, then probably EU politicians suck worse.
As I said, it’s going to be a trade-off between more public appreciation of the process, and a slowing down of necessary developments. The first is worth a lot - IF it ever comes of course - but we’ll have to see whether the cost of the second is going to be worth it. It will all depend on what will happen next. You’ll see the EU members trying to salvage at least parts of the treaty, and if they succeed there is a serious risk that this will lead to more skepticism. The wise thing would be to introduce all the stuff that opens up the EU more, like (perhaps a stronger version) of the red card, the million vote deal, and the extention of powers of the European Parliament, starting with the right of amendment; but there were very likely to have been less popular tradeoffs on the other side, without which certain members might not agree.
As above.
A million autographs would have put that on the agenda. I think you’d easily be able to rally those in London alone.
Ah, but at least you could make a case based on numbers, drag in global economy force them to come up with a calculation that factors that in, and then laugh as you point out the errors in front of the court (or not). The burden of proof would be on the side of the proposer.
Mind you, we are talking about a law that would affect a group of, what, 5000 workers in the UK, who are now basically being forced to work 49.5 hours a week under dangerous circumstances, and the end-result would be that they’d be allowed to work only … 48.
The point is that the new treaty would have been able to positively affect this discussion, that is going on right now without the new treaty anyway.
I’m not sure I understand this paragraph correctly, but I’m assuming you meant to say "I do not think that the … ". In which case I again want to point out that I think the new treaty would have allowed a lot more than just political barganing to decide what will be forced into action and what not. You see, in practice the game won’t change all that much - groups of states will still try to form alliances and push certain things trough, politically coerce other states into accepting certain impopular stuff, etc., but with the new treaty the game would have been a lot more transparent (we’d be able to read the councils minutes on most subjects, be able to question certain trade-offs on quantitative grounds in court, give more powers to the crippled European Parliament, etc.)
They could have voted for the EP members that have been making a stand against corruption and unnecessary wasting of money. They could have voted a blank. There are better ways of making your voice heard then by shutting up.
I’m not too sure that people who voted for Le Pen were actually protest-voting, to be honest.
And I think that this discussion has already taken place. The only problem has been that the people haven’t been involved, and they themselves haven’t been paying attention. To put the blame solely with the politicians is too easy. If you don’t vote capable people into government you can be held responsible as a voter. If you don’t think there’s a viable alternative, take into account that the viable alternatives apparently have better things to do than run the country, like making big bucks on the paycheck of commerce.
In the end, I’ll agree with you if the No vote should be understood to read “Hey, I’m not really sure what’s going on with the EU, and before we go any further I’d like to know more about it, and I want our national politicians to do a better job of selling it” rather than, as just one small example of the many reasons out there “hey, things aren’t going so well right now and it doesn’t make me feel so good about myself, so I’m not comfortable with change right now, even if I can’t really be bothered to figure out whether that change is a good thing or not.”
I know, it sounds skeptical, it sounds elitist, but I’m still not quite convinced it isn’t also true.