The discussion on Europe is nothing more than a scaremongering contest between politicians on both sides of the divide. What else is left to voters but to seek refuge in sweeping statements when politicians refuse to listen to them, asks René van Leeuwen.

As I was sitting on a friend’s couch the other day I caught some snippets of a discussion he was having with his girlfriend. They were talking about Syria. My friend was trying to back her into a corner: If you’re against Western intervention you presumably don’t mind Assad killing children!, he said.
I know my friend and I know how stubborn he can be (we’re alike in that respect). I decided not to interfere. I don’t think it would have led to anything anyway. The conversation put me in mind of the seemingly equally insurmountable differences of opinion dominating the debate on Europe. You’re either a Europhobe or a Europhile. Apparently, there is no middle ground.
Tunnel vision
Uwe Arnhold recently added his two cents, in this paper. According to Arnhold, the political centre is feeding ‘populism and demagoguism’. By putting the two terms together Arnhold leaves us in no doubt about his opinion on ‘populism’. I think he’s wrong. Tunnel vision has never got us anywhere. Arnhold, predictably, fails to come up with an answer to his own question: ‘Why this anti-European attitude?’
But Arnhold isn’t alone. We are being subjected to scaremongering from both camps every single day. Wilders says Europe will be the death of us, Pechtold says Europe is our only salvation. Only the ChristenUnie’s Arie Slob, interviewed on Knevel and Van den Brink, tried to come up with a nuanced picture based on several possible scenarios.
Slob proposed an independent inquiry in order to shed more light on these different scenarios. The fact that such an inquiry should come about at this late stage and as a result of a suggestion made by a marginal party says a great deal about the vision and foresight of politicians who couldn’t be bothered to consult the public’s wishes regarding the ESM. Politicians who are still claiming to represent the people .
Nunance? Boring!
Economist Matthijs Bouman had been invited to join Slob on the show. His most remarkable contribution was: ‘Without the euro we might as well close down the port of Rotterdam and Schiphol’. As if the sea would suddenly dry up and the sky fall on our heads. His hosts swallowed it word for word. Nuance? Boring! My own sweeping statements are proof to that. My features get ten times more comments than other, more moderately phrased contributions.
Knevel and Van den Brink didn’t say anything either when Nout Wellink dryly stated that, in all probability, we had seen the last of the money lent to Greece (read: the Greek banks). If I had hosted that show I would have jumped on him there and then. I was biting my nails in frustration at this sorry piece of journalism. Wellink is posh but he’s also a cheap liar who should be held responsible for his deeds in a court of law.
Anyway, back to nuance. Or wait, I can’t. There are no grey areas in this debate. Even when not everyone who is pro or anti Europe is automatically a Europhile or a Europhobe, no matter how convenient the terms are with an election coming up. Arnhold is right to say that politicians are making things more difficult for themselves by suggesting that they are. They are also underestimating the voters’ ability to think beyond black and white.
Neglecting
So why is anti European sentiment rife in the Netherlands? asks Arnhold. If I am permitted a suggestion I would say it’s because politicians (in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe) are neglecting the electorate. The ESM is the latest proof. And look at people like Olli Rehn. Where did that prophet of doom spring from? Who gave him a democratic mandate?
Arnhold, and Jason Manolopoulos before him, complained about the lack of leadership. I don’t think we need a charismatic visionary as much a leader who listens to his voters. As long as politicians turn a deaf ear, voters will continue to shout out sweeping statements, just in order to be heard, even for a second. If only politicians would remove the ear plugs. They would be surprised at just how nuanced voters’ opinions can be.
René van Leeuwen is studying for a Masters degree at Erasmus University, Rotterdam. This column was originally published in the Volkskrant