naï, né, pù shi, nò, nej, ne, ei, tidak, nãom, Нет, nie, nage, non, nein, no or just a simple Dutch NEE!

After post 200 was about RotS, post 201 is about voting NO! today. I cannot believe why still so many people want to vote for the proposed constitution.

Some reasons, according to our government, who’s always trying to be the best kid in class, where the class is the EU:

  1. If we vote no, there will come a war.
  2. If we vote no, the economy will fall down for exactly one year.
  3. if we vote no, the Netherlands will look really bad in Brussel
  4. Because of the EU, Germany and France haven’t been at war for 60 years. The EU accomplished that.
  5. If we vote yes, we will not become a small part of a superstate, dominated by France, Germany and Britain.

Where Chirac could tell his country and people they would benefit from the new constitution, our government hasn’t given us any clear clues as to what we will benefit from it. From the beginning, they have had arguments that should make us fear a no vote. A quote from CNN : Although the politicians want us to vote “Yes”, we don’t know why, they don’t explain much,” says one Dutch person.”

Back to the reasons to vote. Of course these are all very not true. The first two have been confirmed by other politicians, a war will not be started just because of us voting no, and the economy won’t fall because of a no. But how about the second? Will we look bad in Brussel? Another quote from CNN : “The Netherlands is one of the bloc’s founding members and is a nation accustomed to saying yes — on such matters as Amsterdam’s infamous sex parlors and legalizing drugs.”

I cannot remember ever saying yes to those topics. But besides that, everyone expects us to say yes, because they’re used to that. Will voting no make the Netherlands look bad? I think not! It makes people look at us and the EU differently. Another quote from CNN : “The result raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe. About the challenges in the rest of the world and the ability of Europe to respond, “says British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw.” I’m not really sure that this is positive, but at least they’re thinking again!

Then reason number 4. It’s ridiculous! Whoever thinks that is the or a reason to vote yes, should first explain me how it is possible that England and the Dutch haven’t been at war since 1784. That’s for over 200 years! We didn’t need the EU for that, did Germany and France need the EU for not going at war with each other? And would they also dare to say that if the EU was setup before 1929, the second world war wouldn’t have happened as well? The arrogance!

The last reason then. There are so many examples that this is not true. For example, Rick van der Ploeg. Former “staatssecretaris” of culture. What value have statements by him? Be sure to know he teaches economics in three EU countries, Italy, Britain and the Netherlands. As an extra, he went for the role of “Europees commissaris” for the Netherlands, but didn’t get the role. 🙂 Anyway, when interviewed by a large newspaper in The Netherlands, he was asked what he thinks of the fact that the constitution determines that countries can’t provide Eurocommisionaries anymore. He responded : “That is a logical effect of the close corporation. In The Hague is the Dutch government, and nobody is questioning whether there’s someone from every province in our country in there. That’s how you should look at it.” And that’s the thing I’m afraid for! That we just become a part of a large superstate. Because…

When, in the past, Chirac and Schröder didn’t like the guidelines by Dutch eurocommisionary Bolkestein about free invisible trades, they had a private chat. Afterwards, Chirac openly declared : “The principle of his guideline (…) was not acceptable. Both France and Germany have made that clear in Brussel, and so the guideline doesn’t exist anymore.” And that’s how it’s currently going, my friends. This cannot improve, but will only get worse in the future.

Two other reasons I have to vote a no:

  • The Netherlands pays relatively the most money to the EU. Our government promised us to do something about it with the new constitution, but failed to do so. Only some vague guidelines were submitted. And when we take a look at the rules about every EU country it’s budget deficit, we all know what happened to those in the past. And those rules were/are clear!
  • It has become clear that we should’ve never agreed on the Euro or at least how our own currency was rated.

I think I’ve made my point clear: NO!

You may also like...

45 Responses

  1. questa says:

    Hele intressant post moet ik zeggen. Ik heb tot vandaag nog twijfels gehad, maar ik moet toegeven na het lezen van je post dat ik toch maar tegen stem, dus NO 🙂

    Alleen jammer dat onze eerste inversteerders in het bedrijf de EU was, maar vooruit.

  2. Patrick Wellink says:

    Well dennis…..

    I haven’t seen good reasoning in this article.

    Vote no because We pay a lot to the EU…. ( voting NO won’t fix that), And the Euro has nothing to do with this voting.

    I would vote YES because i think it’s better to do so.. ( the Unions etc all say we must vote Yes )

    But i won’t vote. I feel like my vote doesn’t count at all. We have been suffering for 10 years of ‘Vuile gore regentenpolitiek’ by the dutch government. The haven’t been listening to the people at all. I don’t think they will listen this time either… If it’s a no we are voting again in a year…

    No I don’t vote because i don’t wanna vote. I don’t feel we live in a democratic country anymore… ( vuile zakkevullers zijn het allemaal !!!!)

  3. That’s one reason I forgot. You cannot vote Yes because the unions are all saying you should. You cannot believe that everything will be fine some time.

    I’ve read abotu someone voting yes because he says "Hey, people have thought about it for long." I ask you, might they be wrong? Are they ever? I present the Euro, the "betuwe-lijn", etc, etc, etc… The examples are endless where they f*ck up totally. And we must vote yes because our government says so? Come one!

    And I think I’ve explained the reasons pretty well. If you cannot find reasons in my post, I ask you to give me your reasons why you’d vote yes. And you cannot come up with "because a lot of smart people have thought about it". I want real reasons.

  4. Yes!

    Europe is necessary to make a stand against upcoming big countries and economies, like America, China and Russia. Togehter we can make a stand and the strong can help the weak. Of course we are now contributing more to Europe than some other countries, but that’s the only way we can even the level of all countries. Together, European countries can help each other out and we can compete with the other big boys in class.

    United we stand, divided we fall…..

    There are so much reasons to vote yes:

    – The European army will cost less (per rato) because of less overhead

    – Other economies are overtaking us (China, Russia)

    – Each country WILL keep it’s own laws and rules

    – …

    NOFI Dennis, but I feel like you want to vote no, because you think the reasons given to vote yes aren’t compelling enough. Maybe you should base your vote on the contents of the constitution in stead of what someone (anyone) has to say about it…

  5. Rick, finally someone who has given me reasons why he votes yes.

    First, I’m not voting NO because of what you say. I’ve read a lot about the constitution on many, many (political) websites and by those I’ve come to my conclusion.

    This doesn’t mean however, I’m against Europe! I am however against the current standing of the constitution. Might it be guidelines, might it be the final draft, whatever.

    I agree that Europa is (or at least can be) good for our European economy. But that doesn’t mean I have to vote yes.

    The most important reason I have is not that I don’t believe that our country isn’t keeping our own laws and rules, but the fact that we loose a lot of our sovereignty.

  6. Frans Bouma says:

    This constitution is a bad one. It’s promoting privatisation of state property, and what’s very bad is that the rules how things are decided in the EU don’t really change: the EU council can ignore (and will ignore, see software patents) the EU parliament if it wants to, even with the new constitution. A country which isn’t agreeing with it can’t veto it anymore, it has to obey the law formulated by the EU council, and can only go to the EU court. But… that can take years, and an EU court can’t decide for a country if something is right or wrong, it can only test if something is against the law or not.


    Make no mistake: WHICH laws will be formulated is up to the countries, if the majority of countries find the dutch drug laws too soft, they WILL make a law and the dutch have to obey it.

    The silly thing is, no-one of the ‘yes’-camp talks about this, the article is also in the 400 range (almost at the end of the 423 pages of the constitution).

    What I also don’t understand is why Groen Links is in favor of this constitution and why it campaigns for the right-wing airheads now in control. Let those blue suits do their own campaigning.

    I’ll vote NO! today.

  7. Frans Bouma says:

    "Each country WILL keep it’s own laws and rules "

    No, they won’t. NOW, a country can use its veto if it wants to. AFTER that, it can’t. If the group of countries which want a given law is large enough, a country can’t stop it: it first has to find 5 (I think, could be 4, have to look that up) other countries which will stop this law. If that fails, it’s all over. If they succeed, these 6 countries can give a Yellow card. But that yellow card is stupid, the EU council can simply ignore it. The EU parliament can vote on a law, but the EU council can still ignore it. Then what? Well, the country can then go to the EU court. Though that will AND take years, AND the outcome is very uncertain, probably the EU court will decide it can’t make a judgement (because, based on what?).

    -> law in effect, country can’t do a thing about it.

    People forget that the EU is mostly an economical institution. It should stay that way. It’s undoable to force a law on the netherlands because right-wing catholic maniacs in Ireland and Poland thought it would be good for our filthy society.

  8. Whatever your opinion. This post does not belong on the main feed. Only a few weeks ago, another blogger was reminded of this. I think it was Ernst Wolthaus in that case. So please remove it from the main feed.

    On the subject. I vote No. Not because I’m against the EU, but only because nobody can explain what is new in this so-called constitution. According to the politicians, 90% is consolidating current agreements. But they failed to mention what the new 10% is.

  9. Ramon 'Exyll' Smits says:

    I will vote NO this evening because:

    * The Netherlands will lose weigth in Brussel. Especially when the union will expand. This is ofcourse the way it should be in a democracy. But our country has some controversial things like abortion, softdrugs, taxes. When our politicians want to overrule brussel because they think this is a foreign affair then this is only possible it 1/3 of the union thinks that it is a foreign affair.

    * It would be much better to have a union minister for finance then one for foreign affairs. How on earth can you have one statement about foreign affairs to other continents when the countries within the union are so different?

    * Voting yes will NOT make intelligence agencies spread more information between countries to fight ‘terrorism’. Local intelligence agencies are not even informing the ministries or presidents 🙂

    * Countries wil have their local laws & rules until more then 2/3 of the union thinks it would be better to do this on a global level.

    * Having one union will not make us be more competitive against cheap-ass countries as China. We just have to live with the fact that in 30 years there wont be a rich small ‘western’. It really isn’t worth the effort to fight against this.

    * It will not make it more transparent what they are doing in Brussel in the europian parlament. A lot is currently decided on pressure from big multinational corporations or movements.

    and not because:

    * The euro.. the euro is one of the best things for europe. Although it made the life of normale people more expensive. The europian union lives on export. Espescially Holland with al that cheese and flowers 🙂

    * That I think our current cabinet makes a mess of it. They aren’t archieving much at the moment but if they would then I would still vote No.

    * Voting no won’t make Dutch financial contributions less. As this is the same for voting yes. There are already treaties in place just as a whole lot of other stuff currently mentioned in this new european constitution.

  10. Jean-Paul says:

    This is a very interesting post and will lead to a lot of discussion.

    Personally I don’t read any argument in the post to vote for no. These so called arguments are also used by the Socialist Party.

    They vote no for the exact same non-related reasons.

    Others say we will lose our veto right.

    Can you tell me the last time we used it?

    Exactly, an empty argument.

    The european union can’t move on with the veto right for every nation.

    I will vote for YES!.

    In my opinion the constitution isn’t the best in the world, but it is better to take a bad decision than no decision at all.

    With the constitution we will see economic growth because our country is a stable one. Investors like that.

    Without it, is will remain uncertain what OTHER members of the european union will decide what to do with our ‘no’ vote.

    In what position will be end up with our ‘no’?

    I don’t think we will be able to change the laws if the other 23 countries voted yes……….

  11. ernst says:


    I’m gonna vote NO!

    and I’ll tell you why…

    FIRST (and most important)

    The proposed constitution removes the veto rights for countries for many issues.

    This means that in a lot of cases, individual countries will be overruled by a majority of votes by Germany and France.

    This is NOT imaginary! It’s a well known fact (like Dennis already showed) that Germany and France like to get together to make up their minds and then impose them on the EU.

    For example: when Germany and France crossed the 3% deficit border on the stabilisationpact for the Euro, the European commission didn’t intervene. About a year ago, the Dutch budget also was in danger of crossing the 3% margin. The European commission immediately warned the Netherlands about a pending penalty.

    Nice detail: when the Euro stabilisationpact was made, Germany insisted on a penalty for the countries who crossed the 3% margin.

    But when Germany itself crossed it, it simply ignored the European Commission. When our minister of Finance (Zalm) tried to maintain the rules, he was overruled by…. (you guested it!) Germany and France.

    Another example:

    The UK gets a discount of 4.4 Billion Euro’s every year!!! Just because they refused to cooperate if not. That’s the power of large countries that we as Dutch will suffer from with the new voting system. (in fact, we already are "at the short end of the stick")

    Meanwhile, Barosso wants to make the Netherland 1 Billion more. And we already pay per head more than any other EU member!

    Yet another example:

    Just a bit of history; De Gaulle (ex-French President) once said: "Frankrijk heeft maar 1 belang en dat is zelfbelang" (roughly translated: "French only serves itself…")

    This is the way the EU will work with the new constitution! The small countries will have to follow while the large countries will make up the rules.


    Despite everything our politicians say, the proposed constitution will lead to a superstate. It takes away government power and rights and places them in Brussel.

    I DON’T want a superstate… The Netherland will be reduced to a german province.

    Something we were saved from in ’45 😉


    A lot of people throughout Europe think the European proces is going to fast. So, by voting NO to the proposed constitution we’ll stop that proces.

    Even if you’re not really opposed to the proposed constitution, a NO will make politicians listen more to the people they represent (I hope).


    Our politicians said a NO will be negative for our economy. They’re lying!!!

    The best performing economies in Europe are those outside the Euro and the stabilisationpact, like the UK en Denmark.

    In fact, ‘thanks’ to the EU, we in Europe have the lowest economic growth rate in the world.

    That’s my 50 (euro)cents.

  12. ernst says:


    Quote: "Vote no because We pay a lot to the EU…. ( voting NO won’t fix that)"

    Voting NO will remember politicians they should listen more to their voters!

    The current EU proces is based on the political elite and totally regards what the people in Europe want.

    And Patrick, if you’re really so negative about our democracy, why don’t you use your democratic rights to show our government that they wrong!

  13. Jean-Paul says:


    The SECOND point is exactly what the no-camp is doing. Digging into the past to scare the voters.


    Because they don’t have real arguments.

    The UK example is exactly why you should vote for Yes. Without the veto right (which the UK is threatening with), europe could make the UK pay more without the discount.

    Final and FOURTH point.

    You cannot prove that without, what you call the EU’, the economic growth would be higher in the Netherlands.

    It is so easy to claim you were right afterwards.

  14. @ Jean-Paul, I don’t know whether you’re Dutch. But in Holland PvdA and Groen Links are "socialist parties", and they want you to vote YES! In Holland the "extreme" left wing SP and extreme right wing (Geert Wilders) want us to vote no.

    I’m NOT going to vote cause I really didn’t dig deep in what the things are that would change.

    For the Dutch voters check :

    It helped me with creating a better view about what were talking about here.

  15. @Saber : It has been proved by multiple parties that the referendumwijzer doesn’t give a clear picture about the constitution. It has questions that everyone (!) would agree upon, but have side effects that (in my opinion) everyone would disagree upon, that they leave out in the question.

    @Jean-Paul : No offense, but the arguments of the yes voters haven’t been really good. War, fall of economy, saying yes because france says no and can’t dictate what we must/should do? The latter is exactly the reason why I say no, because I don’t want them to dictate what we must do.

  16. ernst says:


    You didn’t address my first (and most important) point.

    The new voting rules will work in favor of large countries and against small countries.


    I’m not digging in the past. Again I say, this takes away government power and rights and places them in Brussel.

    Why don’t you address that issue?


    No, I can’t "prove" that our economy suffers by the EU. But it’s remarkable, to say the least.

    Especially when our so called ‘leaders’ made agreement in Portugal that the EU would be the strongest economy in 2008(?). Why are they failing miserable?!?!?!

  17. ernst says:

    Referendumwijzer is sponsored by our government.

    How about that for objectivity?

  18. ernst says:

    I’m sorry…

    I forgot a very important point…

    Ome more reason why I’m against further integration of the EU memberstates:

    We now have 25 memberstates. There’s absolutely NO WAY that it will be possible that policy, made in Brussels, will be effective.

    So, the EU will always have (literally) compromised legislation by nature. It’s just not possible to write legislation where all countries will agree upon.

    Therefore, it’s an illusion that this constitution will work (for the Netherlands).

  19. Basically I don’t see why people should vote. Why? Because I haven’t heard ONE good argument that I should vote No or Yes. The new constitution is just too damned complex for a simple Yes or No.

  20. ernst says:

    Referendumwijzer is van het IPP.

    En dit staat op hun site:

    "Het IPP ontvangt voor een deel van zijn projecten subsidie van het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (BZK) en genereert daarnaast een substantieel deel van zijn inkomsten uit opdrachten van overheden, overheidsinstanties en particuliere organisaties. Het Instituut heeft momenteel ongeveer 35 vaste en tijdelijke medewerkers in dienst. De partners van het IPP zijn maatschappelijke organisaties in binnen- en buitenland, overheidsinstanties op Europees, landelijk, provinciaal en lokaal niveau en burgers die zich individueel of in groepsverband inzetten voor een democratische samenleving."

    Objectieve bron? Ik dacht ‘t nie….

  21. Jean-Paul says:


    I agree that the ‘yes’ arguments told by our ministers are very very bad. They took it way to lightly and should have informed the people much better. The light doesn’t go out and there will be no war. They just weren’t able to explain to the people why to vote for yes.


    Yes, I’m dutch and I meant the SP


    If we want to become the United states of Europe, and I think we have to in order to remain a continent with some influence, we have to make sure to centralize some power in Brussels. I think foreign affairs, defence, Justice, Environmental affairs and Economic affairs are suitable for centralized coordination. And 25 countries is only half of the number of states the US is managing

    Your first point was the Veto right. We don’t use it now, so why don’t we get rid of it to have other also not being able to use it. Maybe we’re too scared to use it, but we don’t so there is no problem with throwing away.

    Another point is larger countries ruling us. That doesn’t change when you vote no. In a united europe there will always be more influence from the larger countries. We’re not that big so we must not make the mistake to think that we have as much influence as France. However with the constitution we can easier get a majority for our ideas than we can now.

  22. Leon de Winter : How come the US constitution can fit on a few pages, when the EU constitution must take almost 500 pages?!

    This must mean our constitution is based on mutual distrust.

  23. Jean-Paul says:

    The biggest mistake was to call it a constitution, because it really isn’t.

    It is a treaty which defines some basic rights.

  24. ernst says:


    You just demonstrated my point, talking about "United states of Europe".

    That’s just what I DON’T want, a superstate like that….

    So you vote Yes, thinking about the "United states of Europe" when politicians tell us it won’t lead to an United states of Europe. 😉

    Rethink, maybe you should vote NO!

  25. Ramon 'Exyll' Smits says:

    France voted No, the Dutch citizens will probably vote No but that will not mean that the government will say No. I don’t think they will do this coz that would be their death penalty at the next elections.

    This means 2 countries will vote NO. When at least 6 countries vote NO then this constitution/treaty will be rejected in the whole union. If less then 6 vote NO then the other countries will decide what they are going to do.

    Well.. France won’t be in the union so I think the other countries will also reject it.

    Let’s face it.. they should have cut up this constitution/treaty. First make sure that everyone agrees with the constitution.. the rest will follow.

    Europe bigger, better, tougher, rougher, in other words sucker there is no other :-). This couses unfair trade between Europe and for example Afrika. So please.. I really don’t want to be part of a wealthy nation that has such an aggrasive attitude against other poor nations.

    I know one europe would be better in the long run.. but that doesn’t mean I would be proud to be a part of it.

  26. Jean-Paul says:


    It is an illusion to think that the Netherlands will stay the same.

    As a small nation it is important to be part of a bigger union.

    I want europe to become the united states of Europe so I vote YES.

  27. Ramon 'Exyll' Smits says:

    b.t.w. I agree with Jan Schreuder that this post should be on the mainfeed. But because of this shitty blog engine you probably cannot change the blogitem anymore 🙂

  28. Ramon 'Exyll' Smits says:

    Correction.. should -> should not

  29. Too bad for you all this isn’t a democratic blog, so I vote no to your arguments about the main feed… 😀

    But seriously, I’ve had discussions about what to put on the frontpage and not, and it’s up to the people who post stuff. I’m not moderating posts. Only thing is, when I get complaints from other people that half naked woman are in the mainfeed, I send an email 🙂

    It’s up to the poster at all times. Well, at least most of the times. Porn and such is not allowed in our republic. 🙂

  30. I promise btw my next one will be technical! 😀


    ANP nieuws van vandaag:

    Brussel: eind aan hypotheekrente

    De Europese Commissie wil dat het Nederlandse kabinet de aftrek van hypotheekrente moet afschaffen. Dit om onze balans op langere termijn ook evenwichtig te houden. Het gaat om een advies. Op zich heeft Brussel niet de bevoegdheid om in te grijpen in de belastingaftrek, waarvan vrijwel alle huiseigenaren profiteren. Indirect zijn er echter genoeg pressiemiddelen.

  32. Gaat toch een keer gebeuren hoor, dat ze daar in gaan snijden. Den Haag roept het al jaren. Wordt alleen een probleem voor mensen die hun huis alleen kunnen betalen dankzij die aftrek.

  33. Jean-Paul says:

    Als ze de hypotheekrenteaftrek afschaffen, dan gaat de inkomstenbelasting omlaag.

    Zo doen ze dat ook in andere landen.

    No big deal en per saldo maakt het niet zoveel uit.

    Echter de overgang van de ene naar de andere situatie is een beetje tricky.

    Ik ben het wel met je eens dat dit een ongelooflijk knullig moment is om mee te komen. Wacht er dan een week mee ofzo. Nu weet ik zeker dat het nog invloed op het referendum heeft. Minkukels. *ARGH*

  34. M.a.w. je stemt nu NEE?! 😉

    Maar goed, blijkt maar weer hoeveel verstand men daar bezit. En er zijn dus heel veel stemmers die JA stemmen met de gedachte dat er wijze mannen zitten die overal wel over nagedacht hebben. Erg naief!

    He, lekker… Straks naar huis. Eventjes NEE stemmen. Biertje pakken. Lekker hoor. 😉

  35. Jean-Paul says:

    Natuurlijk stem ik nogsteeds JA.

    Door een nee wordt dit ook niet anders.

    Doordat het zo duidelijk gericht is op het beinvloeden van het referendum zal het wel een opzetje van het nee-kamp zijn.

    Die bedienen zich wel vaker van dat soort praktijken.

  36. LOL! Ze hebben ook in het JA kamp humor, dat valt me dan toch weer mee! 🙂

  37. Ramon 'Exyll' Smits says:

    Door nee te stemmen blijft dit een advies van de EC 🙂

    Van mij mag die hypotheekrente aftrek best weg. Maar dan ook minder belastingaftrek op m’n salaris en de bpm van de auto’s weg. Tevens wil ik compensatie voor de waardedaling van mijn woning evenals een compensatie voor de halvering van de waarde van mijn auto.

  38. Ramon 'Exyll' Smits says:


    "Doordat het zo duidelijk gericht is op het beinvloeden van het referendum zal het wel een opzetje van het nee-kamp zijn. Die bedienen zich wel vaker van dat soort praktijken."


  39. Jean-Paul says:

    Het nee-kamp heeft zich heel erg gericht op de euro als argument om tegen te stemmen.

    Dat valt natuurlijk goed bij het gros van de bevolking terwijl dat helemaal niets met de grondwet te maken heeft.

    Jammer dat ze geen faire campagne willen voeren.

    Overigens is het waarschuwen voor oorlog en ‘dat het licht uit gaat’ ook niet echt iets wat met de grondwet te maken heeft, maar daar zijn ze dan ook goed onderuit gegaan en wonderlijkerwijs de nee-ers voor de euro niet……..

  40. Dat is wat het ja-kamp zegt, dat het jammer is van bijv. die euro. Maar ondanks dat het inderdaad niet is waarom mensen nee moeten stemmen, vind ik het wel valide als mensen het toch doen.

    Lees bijvoorbeeld het volgende stuk eens erop na. 200% overdreven, maar mét kern van waarheid.

    Lees meteen dan even dat je snel een tent moet kopen! 😉

  41. Jean-Paul says:

    Ik vind het dus niet valide als mensen stemmen om de verkeerde reden. Dan misbruiken ze hun stemrecht.

  42. Het ja kamp heeft niet uit kunnen leggen waarom je Ja moet stemmen. Het is heel simpel. Het is een verdrag waarin allerlei afspraken staan. Ik had best Ja willen stemmen als iemand mij had kunnen vertellen wat er t.o.v. de huidige situatie nieuw is. En dat wordt niet gedaan.

    Zoals ik al eerder zei, 90% van deze "grondwet" is een consolidatie van de huidige afspraken. Als dat alles was, dan had ik graag Ja gestemd. Ik denk dat een groot Europa nodig is, zeker als economisch blok. Maar de andere 10% is mij niet duidelijk. En omdat ik dat niet kan overzien, en omdat niemand mij kan uitleggen wat die 10% is, wil ik niet anders dan Nee stemmen.

    @jean-paul. Er zijn altijd mensen die om verkeerde redenen stemmen. Als is het maar omdat mensen met redenen stemmen die jou (of mij) niet aanstaan. Dat mag je alleen niet zien als misbruik. Ik heb ook al mensen horen zeggen dat een groot deel van de bevolking niet begrijpt waar het over gaat. En ik denk dat dat zo is. Maar zou je dan niet moeten gaan stemmen? Ik denk dat het beter is als er een keer wordt uitgelegd waar het over gaat.

  43. Jean-Paul says:


    Ik ben het helemaal met je eens dat het ja-kamp niet goed heeft kunnen uitleggen waarom mensen ja moeten stemmen.

    Ze hebben het veel te licht opgevat.

    Veel mensen realiseren zich niet dat stemmen een krachtig recht is. Als mensen dus tegen de grondwet stemmen, omdat vandaag de gehaktballen niet in de aanbieding zijn, dan vind ik dat misbruik maken van je stemrecht.

    Daarmee verpest je het voor de mensen die wel dat recht serieus gebruiken. Ik ben dan ook van mening dat je in dat geval niet moet gaan stemmen.

  44. David says:

    Hi i need help from u with WoW if u could help me. here is my email [email protected] thx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *