VRCurassow

After the Referendum
what happens next?


Countup since the Second Referendum
8 April 2005
days hours min. sec.
rather negative, isn't it?
how much time will go by before something really happens?




Results
Option A, status aparte, won by a large margin (about 67%).
Now we can only sit back and watch our Leaders mess it up.
The story continues.

monument
new monument
take off: exploding N.A.
Binding or not?
— Some Dutch politicians say the referendum is binding, as Curaçao did not vote for Option B.
— All Curaçao politicians say the referendum is binding, as Curaçao did not vote for Option D.
— Only 54% of the voters turned up, even less than for normal elections. This may make the referendum not valid.
— St. Eustatius island (3000 inhabitants) opted for option C. This may mean the Netherlands Antilles cannot fall apart.
There seem to have been 4 UN resolutions on this. Weird; how, then, could Aruba island have stepped out? Well, that's an easy one:—
If you think any of this would make one hoot of difference to our politicians, the Dutch politicians, the United Nations politicians, or us non-politicians, you are naïvely mistaken. The politicians will continue to act as they please, like the bunch of spoiled kids they are.
Nobody will stop them, or even try to.



What led up to it:
the mess of 1993-2004


Position
Like the 1993 referendum, whatever we vote for was not binding. We were just advising the politicians of our opinion. An option must have a majority of over 50% to win. If there had been no winning option, a new referendum would have been held with a choice between the two biggest winners. Another referendum may have to be held later, to have the people decide on the results of negotiations on the first referendum's interpretation.
But, come right down to it, this was nothing but a poll. The Referendum Commission ambiguously was of the opinion that the referendum was binding. Just like the 1993 one; yeah.
The Referendum Commission may mean well but does sound a bit naïve when it states that the referendum has a consultative character; but it is morally binding to the politicians. If they don't follow-up accordingly, the people should vote them out at the next elections. Just like after 1993; yeah. Would you ever trust any politician to listen to the dictates of his morals?

Choices
A    Status Aparte    Curaçao becomes an autonomous part of the Kingdom of the NL
B    Independence    Complete independence without ties to NL
C    NA Status Quo    Remain part of the NA, an autonomous part of the Kingdom
D    Part of Nederland    Become part of Holland country, with Dutch laws and government.

Who May Vote
People from 16 years of age (normal elections age limit is 18) of the Dutch nationality residing in Curaçao. This excluded the Curazoleños not living in Curaçao, almost half of them. A rich source of votes for the Democrat party, they were excluded from elections in the early 1980s by MAN. Those in Holland have been fighting their exclusion on the grounds it's unconstitutional (they lost).

Political Preference
Just like in 1993, all politicians agreed (for once - hmmm...) on what option we should vote for: A, Status Aparte. The problem is, some parties interpret this as a mere step on the road to complete independence; others think it should be just that, a status aparte like Aruba has. Keep remembering these are the same guys that got the country in this mess. In 1993, less than 5% voted for their preferred option, much to their surprise. See how much that advisory vote has helped us.

So What?
This is how I figured it: The politicians we have are not capable to govern an independent country. So option B was out. As option A will be interpreted as identical to option B by at least two large parties, PLKP and MAN, and will certainly be explained the same way by FOL, it amounted to the same thing and therefore was out as well.
Forget Option C, big 1993 winner, because the other islands have already held referenda of their own and voted it out.
At least, that's what the first official leaflet explaining how and what (not why) told us. But the island of St. Eustatius only voted on that same date. (By the way, we picked up that piece of paper from the counter of a hardware store — in 1993 they were delivered by mail at every home. The Nieuwe Post NA maintains everybody has had one; everybody but me. But I got 2 of the last paper, so the average is OK.)
Then, the other referenda did not seem to confirm to UN specifications, so are not really valid. Strictly legally, option C still was open. There was even talk about the N.A. having to stick together when one island, St. Eustatius with 3000 voters, opted to remain in there. So don't ask. But as results would have had to be carried out by the same politicians who failed or refused to do so last time, the option was out anyway.

So That!
The only logical choice the smart politicians left open was D (the spijtoptant option). There just wasn't any viable alternative left, however much this step would have to be deplored - especially by those very politicians.
Holland would have had to take over our enormous debts! (ANG5G, over half of which for Curaçao.) It seemed like a dream... Too bad about that VAT.
No matter how you look at it, this option found 5 times as many voters then in 1993.


An Omen!
The first solar eclipse of the New Millennium took place on April 8
Started here at 17:12:32hrs, over at 18:45:06.
That's just about when the votes were in.
What we needed for real dramatic effect
was a heavy thunderstorm to go with it.



A New Party
As the Option D voters had over one quarter of the votes there is now talk about a new party for them, joining all those others in the free-for-all we did inherit from Holland. In a staunch belief politics will never get us anywhere (I have no idea where I picked this up) what can you say but Wait and see?

economy
Curaçao politics




Search this site powered by FreeFind
back
Custom Search



copyright notice
all material on this site, except where noted
copyright © by , curaçao
reproduction in any form for any purpose is prohibited
without prior consent in writing