>>If size is the crucial factor, then we can as well leave all decisions from now on to England, France and Germany. I'd say, not over my dead body.
>
>I'll send you flowers...;)

(I should have written "I'd say, over my dead body".)
I appreciate the attention ;)

>
>>People interested in the Dutch referendum can read here:
>And in the end it was more a for or against Turkey than anything else..

Then you didn't read the 'Reasons for rejection' section well enough.

>>Belgian parliament has 'successfully' prevented a referendum. Same happened in almost all other nations, whereunder Germany. Shame on them all. (them=their politicians)
>
>Nope, realistic....

Yes, realistic in the sense that they foresaw a rejection if asked directly to the citizens.

>The Dutch made some noise , nobody paid much attention. Treaty got another name and was ratified.......

The last sentence is essentially true and that bothers me a lot.

However, it is not entirely true. The new treaty differs on some points. The Dutch didn't get the chance to vote on this version and THAT is what bothers me. I'm not saying here that the content of the new treaty bothers me. I'm saying that it bothers me that our politicians have prevented that we had e second referendum about the new one. A referendum would have generated new yes/no campaigns and we would have been able to read about and discuss the arguments in favor or against the new version. It would have increased our knowledge and commitment.