Complex situations like this can't just be reduced to a yes/no decision. What does a "no" vote even mean? Does it mean that nothing like that treaty can ever be passed? What about something which resembles the original but tries to address the concerns that were raised by the people who voted against it? What about just certain sections?
Simply "yes/no" is a very crude measurement to actually know what people think or what a good solution would look like. I was somewhat in favour of Brexit, but for very different reasons than Farage (basically: "fuck the fuck in or fuck the fuck off", but not this "we want all of the benefits but none of the costs"). This is why parliaments can amend bills and the like. Maybe we should choose people to represent each side so they can debate each other and reach a compromise. Oh, wait...
---
I don't know about the French one, but the Dutch one was rife with misinformation and nonsense. You know, like that Brexit one, or the EU-Ukraine association treaty one there was a few years later. Except worse because there was bullshit and nonsense on both sides (the amount of "if you vote no" fear-mongering was pretty ridiculous).
Also, like Brexit when asked many people voted yes/no depending on how much they liked the government, or other factors which had little to do with the actual treaty being proposed.
One can say "a vote is a vote, and you shouldn't police motivations". There is something to be said for that. But on the other hand it's hard to ignore that the vote was made in the context of misinformation, and people didn't actually vote on the asked question.
In general I'm actually hugely in favour of more direct democracy, but every single referendum I've seen up close (in Netherlands and when I was living in the UK) has been nothing short of a clusterfuck, in addition to the more fundamental problems I mentioned. I didn't vote in any of them as I didn't think they were valid tools for good decision-making.
But then you only have indirect democratic legitimacy at best.
> Complex situations like this can't just be reduced to a yes/no decision.
Perhaps. Usually it should be retried. But you cannot just turn around and say you suddenly have legitimacy because the executive of a government once thought to ratify a constitution.
You also cannot just say voters were misinformed. Perhaps you are misinformed? This just displays a concerning understanding of democracy. To me that was the propaganda of that specific time in which they needed to ratify something without popular support, against democracy in that case.
If people are stating things that are factually incorrect then you can, I think. Like I said, I'm not hugely comfterable policing people's motivations for voting one way or the other, but at the same time I also think it's foolish to ignore, especially when you're considering how to better organize these kind of more direct democratic measures: you need to evaluate how well they went.
For example "the treaty will allow Turkey to join the EU" was factually just incorrect: it didn't say anything about Turkey, and changed nothing meaningful about the EU entry procedure (and entrance of Turkey was never close in the first place). This nonsense was repeated in the association treaty with Ukraine.
This is really my point: you can't really have a conversation like that via a referendum. Repeat referenda are not really an option as your results will be increasingly biased towards the people with the strongest feelings/motivations.
Furthermore, the EU more or less worked the same before the treaty, and this treaty didn't really change that. In that sense it was a rather poor way to voice the specific criticism that the democratic nature of the EU should be reformed. I actually agree with that! I just don't think the referenda's were meaningful. If anything, it was counter-productive as the amount of nonsense mixed in with the better arguments just makes the criticism easier to ignore, and people who "just say no all the time" are generally easy to ignore in the first place (voting "no" is not a constructive way to improve things).
The people answered and the government of France should have listened, instead they came back with this treaty, changed a few tidbits and called it a day.
It was a slap in the face of democracy that was denounced by the right as well as by the left.
To say that this is a complex topic, so surely people don't know how to make up their mind because they may confuse the issue at hand with something else is laughable.
In a presidential campaign, it is perfectly valid to vote for someone because they speak well, wear nice clothes, say the right thing, or promise anything under the sun.
But a referendum should only be valid if people voted only for the question at hand and nothing else? That's very disingenuous.
If a government triggers a referendum and people vote no either because they don't like the proposal or because they don't like the party/government that brings the proposal forward, then this vote is as valid as any.
I wonder where does it come from, treating EU as some sort of divine deity not capable of any wrong doing and such an effort to sweep its flaws under the rug while chanting "EU is great!".
It's probably the most corrupt and undemocratic organisation on this side of the planet.
But in general, compared to average US views, there is probably more of a recognition that a government is needed, and that it's better than the alternative. But to be honest it's kind of hard to really say too much meaningful without specifics.
For years now, the people who tried to say that the EU in its current form is not working have been silenced by the media or labelled as conspiracy nuts.
