Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 03.06.2005

Dutch journalist Michael Zeeman relates the "nee" in the Netherlands to a feeling of loss of identity among the population, and a growing preoccupation with Dutch history. In his view, "what we have here is a continuation of the popular Fortuyn movement of 2002. There is an alarming rift between the political establishment and the voters, and this rift is fanning distrust among the people, especially regarding European issues." Zeeman sees the "non" in France and the "nee" in Holland as a chance for the future. "To a certain extent, both events have to be seen as contributions to the democratisation of Europe."

On the media page, Jürg Altwegg reports on the role played by the Internet in the French "non". "The cleverest move of the opposition was to allege that the media was behind a 'conspiracy of the yea-sayers'. They suggested that censorship was being carried out in the press and that the people were being patronised, but that in the Internet – and only there – the truth could be said. There was such momentum behind the 'non' that the differences and animosities between Trotskyists, communists, neo-fascists, anarchists and sovereigntists played no role whatsoever."


Süddeutsche Zeitung, 03.06.2005

"The French 'non' was quite reasonable. By contrast, the Dutch 'nee' is purely romantic, writes Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, trying to explain the phenomenon together with his colleague Reiner de Graaf in an interview with Jörg Häntzschel. "I was in Turkey recently. It's an unbelievably energetic country, where people with the most varied visions all work together on a concept for South-Eastern Europe. Turkey is not begging us to become part of Europe. Rather, the people see their candidacy as a challenge to think over who and what they want to be. It's in the new European states and the membership candidates that people really understand Europe's creative dimension. The mentality on the outskirts of Europe seems to me far more European than it is in the established centres, where people are weary, and frightened at the many new faces."


Spiegel Online, 03.06.2005

Dutch author Leon de Winter explains Europeans should be thankful to the Dutch: "For many people, things are going too fast. They don't know if they want to cede their sovereignty, and above all they want to be have a greater say in politics. The EU is not democratic. It's led by civil servants and political elites in Brussels. But the citizens want more direct democracy... We voted 'nee' to protect Europe. Approving the constitution would just have strengthened national forces that capitalise on people's fear of the EU. The result of the vote is not surprising. What is surprising is that until now the politicians had not really understood the voters' mood. Now a discussion about Europe is starting. And if it leads to Europe becoming more transparent and more democratic, then the 'nee' is a success."


Die Welt, 03.06.2005

New York Times columnist David Brooks writes in a commentary (original) that above all a "psychology of stagnation" was at work in France and the Netherlands: "Influenced by anxiety about the future, every faction across the political spectrum found something to feel menaced by. For the Socialist left, it was the threat of economic liberalization. For parts of the right, it was the threat of Turkey. For populists, it was the condescension of the Brussels elite. For others, it was the prospect of a centralized European superstate. Many of these fears were mutually exclusive. The only commonality was fear itself, the desire to hang on to what they have in the face of change and tumult all around."


Peter Zadek in Vienna

Peter Iden, writing in the Frankfurter Rundschau, was evidently overjoyed to have survived Peter Zadek's staging of August Strindberg's "Dance of the Dead" at the Vienna Festwochen theatre and music festival. "The audience come from the performance of August Strindberg's 'Dödsdansen' as if they were coming back from a war. They are beleaguered, almost shell-shocked, from four hours of bearing witness to the grim loss of happiness, future, and even the lives of the characters." Equally unimpressed was Christoph Schmidt, who describes the characters in the Süddeutsche Zeitung as "foot-lame mud-slinging married laggards". The only positive – and this in the extreme - reaction comes from Barbara Villiger Heilig in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Zadek evidently took Strindberg at his word when he wrote, in a brief note to his publisher in 1902: "Call my play 'Dödsdansen' anything you like but don't cut a world of it!" Heilig lauds Zadek's decision: "In this rarely-staged play, which Zadek has dug out again, the staging is granted its proper dimensions; the second half shatters the insularity of the first. Broken pieces of it – like the flotsam from a shipwreck – re-form into something new, but not totally dissimilar from the original constellation – a puzzle, a picture puzzle."