Hannan's post ends with him endulging in some wishful thinking:
If the Dutch were allowed a vote, several of their neighbours might become restive. British voters might ask why the Netherlands should be allowed to vote on Britain’s future.But there is no danger of any restive Britons anytime soon. Besides the political make-up of the Dutch Parliament as outlined above, a second circumstance will serve to block any plebiciscite. Any change to the Treaty of Lisbon, or any other EU treaty for that matter, will normally require the consent of all member states. However, if push comes to shove, the EU leaders will without a doubt - read about it here - activate the Passerelle Clause in the Treaty to change the voting requirements on the issue in question. From then on only a qualified majority of states will have to agree for the change to be enacted. Hannan, normally a man well versed in the myriad ways of politicking in Brussels, has to be aware of this fact.
Holding a referendum in any EU member state at the moment on such a relatively minor issue would also be an impossibly intricate operation. A referendum should only concern that issue for which it is being held - in this case a very complicated set of rules for the financial relationship between the states. But any plebiscite on the European Union will undoubtedly become more about the entire project of European integration than about the issue nominally at stake. If a referendum is to be held at all, in Britain or the Netherlands or anywhere else, it should be about the continued membership of that country in the EU. Only by asking the people to vote on such an all-encompassing issue will the referendum be about that which it is supposed to be about and nothing else.
