Explanation on the NO-arguments for the referendum
(Page currently being translated)
The neutral campaign by ‘Geen Peil’
Source: http://www.geenpeil.nl “Geenpeil has mainly campaigned about the undesirability of a European rapprochement towards Ukraine.” “Now that the referendum is becoming a reality, Geenpeil has decided not to advise people on how to vote.” “This is how our campaign is focused; whether you are for, against or neutral about the referendum, Geenpeil wants to facilitate and help everybody to promote their point of view. So the Dutch will have a say in a democracy which should belong to everybody.”
This treaty is bad for Ukraine, Europe and for us
“…[Ukraine] is being forced to adopt all the rules of the European market. And this is exactly what the big corporations want: Ukraine will be exploited like a colony. Add to that that the bill for including Ukraine in the European market will be footed by the citizens. Promotion of Ukrainian exports for example will be paid for by the European taxpayers. In short: The agreement is good for the multinationals but bad for the citizens both here and in the Ukraine.”
925.nl has a short clip explaining (in Dutch) how the tax systems in Ukraine and even more so in the Netherlands are not designed to benefit the citizens of both Ukraine and the Netherlands but to facilitate tax evasion by international organizations.
The EU wants to absorb Ukraine
‘Last July, the Dutch senate approved a European association treaty with Ukraine. As has been proven by the discussion of this bill, the EU hopes this association treaty will help gradually absorb Ukraine (and also Georgia and Moldavia) into the EU.’
Debates in the senate of the Netherlands illustrated some senators wre indeed worried about these hidden motives. Minister Koenders however claimed there was no need for concern. Further inquiry to Dutch first chamber gave this response; iIn debates in the First Chamber senators ask questions and the Minister answers. The newsitem summarizes the debate and under the header “Belangrijke boodschap van steun” you can read the ‘response of the Minister. All the way down at the bottom the stenogram allows for a full read of the debate. There is/was no follow-up letter of the Minister to the questions that were asked.
European laws need to be adopted to allow for future EU membership
These countries have to adopt EU-legislation. This treaty therefor clearly serves as a stepping stone to full EU-lidmaatschap, allthough our governments and the EU will deny it for obvious reasons. Croatia, that got an association treaty in 2001 and is a member since 2013, clearly sets a presedent.
Laws in those countries is being streamlined with EU-legislation, but that’s no direct eveidence to deduct this assumed intention from. The explicit denial of these eledged motives ought count for something.
However during the signing of the treaty by Ukraine, the European commissioner for extension of the union, Stefan Füle, stated future membership of Ukraine as an unmistakable intention.
Europarlementarians Guy Verhofstadt and Hans van Baalen were at Maidan square during the riots/coup to support the people there. You may find Verhofstadt speech here where he’s quoted: “today the European Union starts with sanctions against the regime of Ukraïne, and that’s only the beginning”. “We as the European Union have one obligation, that’s to stay behind your cause”. Countries such as Ukraine themselves are strongly opinionated these treaties are a prelude to full membership. The remarks by Verhofstadt and van Baalen must also be seen in that respect.
Indeed now EU member Croatia first got an association treaty.
Association treaty was the cause of the Ukrainian civil war
..Furthermore this associationtreaty vwas thé cause of the current civil war in Ukraine. The previous government of Janoekovitsj didn’t want to sign the treaty in 2013. A part of the Ukrainian people revolted, irresponsibly cheered on at Maidan square by Europariamentarians like Guy Verhofstadt and Hans van Baalen and Dutch MP for labour party (PvdA) Jacques Monasch, who made a volatily situation worse. A coup then took place with the support of the US, EU that led to civil war.
The not signing by then government Janoekovitsj, instigated the riots that led to a coup of sorts. We however do not know what would have happened had he signed. Despite all rumours it is also unclear why precisely he didnt sign, though ‘pressure from Russia’ is assumed.
The regime change in Ukraine as a follow-up to failed negotiations with the EU, led to the secession by Crimea. Tjis in turn then led to sanctions against Russia and the uprising in Eastern Ukraine.
The Euro zone creates deficits for geopolitical reasons
The Eurozone debts are ever increasing. But still even after incorporation of countries like Bulgaria and Rumenia the official stance of the EU remains to further extend its territory with new member states, to invest additional tens of billions. EU purposefully moves east (to push their geo political agenda, resulting in all kinds of unwanted tensions with Russia. An association treaty of the EU with Ukraine, in war and bankrupt, not only is irresponsible but also provocative and a threat to prosperity and well being of us ánd the people of Ukraine.
The instigation of the association agreement added to ‘tensions with Russia’. Because of this one could make the point that indeed geo political motives play a part here. It’s not a stretch to assume what is happening geo politically might even be an intended consequence, or at the least mere circumstantial collatoral damage.
A prosperous trade relationship with Russia would entail also good relations with other BRICS nations, among them China.
Good relations by the Eurozone with Russia (and China) could be considered a threat for the world reserve currency status of the US dollar, in the current debt denominated financial system of the western world.
The ‘petrodollar’ link is a major part of the dollar being the world reserve currency; for example Iraq wanted to trade their oil in Euro in stead of dollar under Saddam Hussein, and as of februari 2016 Iran intends to sell her oil in Euros.
Taking these arguments into account, a YES vote could be seen as a choice in favor of the system with dollar as the world reserve currency, wrere as a NO vote could be seen as a threat to world dominance by the United States.
A ‘NO’ isn’t just a ‘NO’ against the treaty
We want to use the referendum to make a clear and loud statement saying NO to the EU. We want to force Dutch politicians to start having a real debate about such matters with the Dutch people, not just among political elite. Also this referendum is a fine cause to shed light on the real costs and benefits of the treaty. Does it really favour Ukrainian citizens, or primarily politicians and oligarchs?
An association agreement like with Ukraïne was also struck with Moldova and Georgia, however those did not give cause for a referendum. It would appear this advisory referendum is primarily not called for because of its wording, but because if it being struck with Ukraine.
Dutch politics appears reluctant to activiely campaign for the referendum, except for the sociallist party SP that claimed to pursue a NO vote. The responsible minister appears to want to limit the people’s ability to vote by significantly reducing the financial budget to organise these elections which would result in fewer places for people to actually go vote.
The point of ‘politicians and oligarchs’ appears to be valid;
- Hunter Biden (the son of US vice president Joe Biden) assumes the board presidency of Ukrains largest oil company only a month after the coup;
- Billionaire George Soros actively supports the YES campaign with 200.000 €. Soros claimed in 2015 he intended to invest a billion dollar in Ukraine;
- IMF and worldbank loans over the years were accompanied by sales of Ukrainian soil;
- from dutch news outlet eenvandaag.nl on 5 feb 2016 The theft of the 24 paintings from the Westfries Museum in Hoorn in 2005, was done as instructed by a rich oligarch. The robbery itself was done by a Ukrainian with a Danish passport, as was written in an article in Ukrain newspaper Vesti. After the succesfull robbery 11 years ago the thief took the paintings to Kiev where he kept them in his appartment. After a special brigade of the Ukrainian police took note of this, they forced entry into the apprtment. But rather than telling the Dutch museum in Hoorn and returning the paintings, the Ukrainians covered it up and stored the painting hoping to get rich of them themselves.