Voters in the Netherlands have rejected in a referendum an EU partnership deal to remove trade barriers with Ukraine.
Turnout was low, 32.2%, but above the 30% threshold for the vote to be valid. The deal was rejected by 61.1% of votes compared with 38.1% in favour.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the government may have to reconsider the deal, although the vote is not binding.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko insisted his country would "continue our movement towards the EU".
A foreign ministry official in Kiev told the BBC that the result was disappointing, adding that Dutch Eurosceptics could not take Ukraine hostage to express dissatisfaction with the EU.
The vote was widely seen in the Netherlands as a test of public opinion towards the EU.
It was triggered by an internet petition begun by Eurosceptic activists that attracted some more than 400,000 signatures.
The result creates a headache for the Dutch government as the Dutch parliament ratified the EU association agreement with Ukraine last year. All the other 27 EU member states have already ratified the deal.
"My view is that if the turnout is more than 30%, with such a victory for the 'No' camp, ratification cannot go ahead without discussion," Mr Rutte said in a televised reaction. It is also an embarrassment for a Dutch government that currently holds the EU presidency.
Geert Wilders, who leads the anti-EU and anti-Islam Freedom Party, said the result was the "beginning of the end for the EU".

Officially the Netherlands has rejected a landmark deal between the EU and Ukraine - in reality the issues that dominated this campaign were much wider.
The referendum was triggered by the Eurosceptic movement which used a new Dutch law designed to promote democracy to force a vote by gathering enough signatures on a petition.
From the start activists said this was a chance for Dutch voters to express frustration at the EU, in particular what they see as its desire to expand despite democratic shortcomings.
But they were not asked to simply pass judgement on the EU, and throughout the campaign those promoting a Yes vote were frustrated by what they saw as attempts by Eurosceptics to hijack a debate which should have been about relations between Ukraine, Russia and Europe.
Some say the multiple layers to this referendum means the result cannot seen as a true reflection of the scale of Dutch Euroscepticism.
Nonetheless, the rejection of this deal will rattle the nerves of European leaders who are already struggling to maintain unity in the face of economic instability and the migrant crisis.
Wider issues behind referendum
The vote comes less than three months before British citizens decide in their own referendum whether to leave the EU altogether.
A spokesman for campaign group Leave.EU, Brian Monteith, said: "This humiliating rejection of the Ukraine agreement demonstrates that people don't have to support the EU and its expansionist agenda to feel European."
The Russian government was vehemently opposed to the EU deal with Ukraine and was widely thought to have pressed then-President Viktor Yanukovych to reject it in November 2013. Mr Yanukovych's decision prompted protests in Kiev that ultimately led to his downfall.
A couple stands next to a poster depicting Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Russian President Vladimir Putin kissing (3 April)Image copyrightReuters
Image caption
Yes campaigners have accused anti-EU politician Geert Wilders of cosying up to Russia's president
Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have widely been blamed for the killing of 298 people, when a Malaysia Airlines flight from Amsterdam was shot down in July 2014. The Netherlands lost 193 of its citizens.
The Ukrainian president stressed the non-binding nature of the vote.
"I am sure that strategically this event is not an obstacle on Ukraine's path towards Europe," Interfax-Ukraine news agency reported Mr Poroshenko as saying.
One of the Dutch Eurosceptics behind the referendum, Thierry Baudet, had warned the government to heed a "No" vote on the deal. "It is not good for the Netherlands, not good for Europe and not good for Ukraine," he said on TV on the eve of the vote.
EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker had described the stakes in the run-up to the vote as being high, warning that a "No'" vote could trigger a wider crisis in the 28-member bloc.
View from Kiev - by BBC Monitoring
Ukrainian students hold up a sign for their pedagogical university as they urge Dutch voters to back the EU deal (5 April)Image copyrightAP
Image caption
On the eve of the vote, Ukrainian students rallied in Kiev urging the Dutch to back their cause
"How will our politicians react if the outcome is a resounding no?" Ukraine's One Plus One TV asked as the polls opened.
In the run-up to the vote, Ukraine's media were abuzz with stories about various Ukrainian initiatives to promote the "Yes" campaign, including what they called an "invasion by propaganda troops" - local politicians and activists travelling to the Netherlands.
Many commentators in Ukraine are now wondering whether Kiev had done enough to counter the No campaign, whose efforts included the distribution of free waffles in wrappers with slogans urging the Dutch to vote against the agreement.

Many commentators in Ukraine are now wondering whether Kiev had done enough to counter the No campaign, whose efforts included the distribution of free waffles in wrappers with slogans urging the Dutch to vote against the agreement.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
There's already a Ukraine thread?

I wouldn't hold my breath over this. Either the Dutch are annoyed over corruption in Ukraine, or its the Euroskeptics seeing as this as an outlet to complain. The 30% turnout shows how little people care in either case.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
There's already a Ukraine thread?

I wouldn't hold my breath over this. Either the Dutch are annoyed over corruption in Ukraine, or its the Euroskeptics seeing as this as an outlet to complain. The 30% turnout shows how little people care in either case.

Those are the two main reasons voted against.

I myself voted no for the first reason, same for the people I know that voted no as well. The turnout is so low because a month ago, a lot of people didn't even know there was a referendum, and a lot of people still didn't know what it was all about yesterday because it's such a complex subject.

Mark Rutte has already promised to take the vote into consideration and to do something with it, he won't just disregard it.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

The EU can swerve the result and can work on Rutte to rerun the referendum to make it sound more palatable.

Carl Bildt:
Agreement EU/Ukraine already approved by 29 democratic EU parliaments. Those voting No in Netherlands today are 0,006% of electorate in EU.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

The EU can swerve the result and can work on Rutte to rerun the referendum to make it sound more palatable.

Or they could ignore it:

Carl Bildt:
Agreement EU/Ukraine already approved by 29 democratic EU parliaments. Those voting No in Netherlands today are 0,006% of electorate in EU.

Of course, he fails to mention that only the Dutch got to vote on the issue.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Why? Ukraine saved the Europe from Putin! And you betrayed them? Oh

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Why? Ukraine saved the Europe from Putin! And you betrayed them? Oh

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

What I meant was, had the people that were in favor of the accord gone and voted, the 30% would've definitely been reached but they might also have won, or make it a much more closer result.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

What I meant was, had the people that were in favor of the accord gone and voted, the 30% would've definitely been reached but they might also have won, or make it a much more closer result.

I make no illusions about turnout numbers or the likelihood of the yes side winning, its just easier to mobilize people against something with scare tactics (and lets be real, thats what the PVV and to a lesser extent the SP were doing) then to inform and educate a reasonable amount of people on the intricacies of the EU association agreement and functioning to help them gain an edge over the no vote.

 Soladrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

What I meant was, had the people that were in favor of the accord gone and voted, the 30% would've definitely been reached but they might also have won, or make it a much more closer result.

I make no illusions about turnout numbers or the likelihood of the yes side winning, its just easier to mobilize people against something with scare tactics (and lets be real, thats what the PVV and to a lesser extent the SP were doing) then to inform and educate a reasonable amount of people on the intricacies of the EU association agreement and functioning to help them gain an edge over the no vote.

To be fair, this holds true for both sides. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the yes voters were just VVD droolies.

Mind you, I almost voted yes just so to disagree with wilders.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

What I meant was, had the people that were in favor of the accord gone and voted, the 30% would've definitely been reached but they might also have won, or make it a much more closer result.

I make no illusions about turnout numbers or the likelihood of the yes side winning, its just easier to mobilize people against something with scare tactics (and lets be real, thats what the PVV and to a lesser extent the SP were doing) then to inform and educate a reasonable amount of people on the intricacies of the EU association agreement and functioning to help them gain an edge over the no vote.

To be fair, this holds true for both sides. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the yes voters were just VVD droolies.

Mind you, I almost voted yes just so to disagree with wilders.

I think its a fair assessment to state that most of the people that turned up to vote did not know exactly (or even well) what they were voting about, even the yes vote. But then again when is it ever the case that most voters know what it is about (its funny cause its true and it makes me cry myself asleep at night ). The PVV has such terrible policy that they would make a mess in government and people vote in droves for Wilders, but at the same time VVD policy is negative to what I'm assuming is the majority of VVD voters who vote. Which one would be delusional and which one would be just plain ignorance we can all individually decide.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

What I meant was, had the people that were in favor of the accord gone and voted, the 30% would've definitely been reached but they might also have won, or make it a much more closer result.

I make no illusions about turnout numbers or the likelihood of the yes side winning, its just easier to mobilize people against something with scare tactics (and lets be real, thats what the PVV and to a lesser extent the SP were doing) then to inform and educate a reasonable amount of people on the intricacies of the EU association agreement and functioning to help them gain an edge over the no vote.

To be fair, this holds true for both sides. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the yes voters were just VVD droolies.

Mind you, I almost voted yes just so to disagree with wilders.

I think its a fair assessment to state that most of the people that turned up to vote did not know exactly (or even well) what they were voting about, even the yes vote. But then again when is it ever the case that most voters know what it is about (its funny cause its true and it makes me cry myself asleep at night ). The PVV has such terrible policy that they would make a mess in government and people vote in droves for Wilders, but at the same time VVD policy is negative to what I'm assuming is the majority of VVD voters who vote. Which one would be delusional and which one would be just plain ignorance we can all individually decide.

Yeah.. I want neither of them in power, though I think I do prefer VVD over PVV any day of the week.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Why? Ukraine saved the Europe from Putin! And you betrayed them? Oh

We didn't betray them! We just want to putin a few words with them about corruption before we want to be associated with them. Most people I talked to also wanted the war to be over first.
Also, how did Ukraine save Europe from Putin? I think it is more like they are in need of saving themselves

 Soladrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
we should have just stayed at home.

Yes, and ignore the democratic right we all have, something our ancestors died for(!)

The reason that over 60% was against is because those in favour of the accord were called upon to stay home for a while, which quite a bit of people did.

The ancestors died for part holds little argument to me, I know our history well thank you
The stayed at home part was aimed at us 33% that voted FOR, because that would have been the way to get what we wanted, invalidate this mess. People just don't care enough to go out and vote on EU matters, sad but true, so you get the very vocal minority. We already elected a pro EU government that would deal with the EU and well, 30% is not a very strong indicator for everything, its not something I would base policy on.

What I meant was, had the people that were in favor of the accord gone and voted, the 30% would've definitely been reached but they might also have won, or make it a much more closer result.

I make no illusions about turnout numbers or the likelihood of the yes side winning, its just easier to mobilize people against something with scare tactics (and lets be real, thats what the PVV and to a lesser extent the SP were doing) then to inform and educate a reasonable amount of people on the intricacies of the EU association agreement and functioning to help them gain an edge over the no vote.

To be fair, this holds true for both sides. I'm willing to bet a large portion of the yes voters were just VVD droolies.

Mind you, I almost voted yes just so to disagree with wilders.

I think its a fair assessment to state that most of the people that turned up to vote did not know exactly (or even well) what they were voting about, even the yes vote. But then again when is it ever the case that most voters know what it is about (its funny cause its true and it makes me cry myself asleep at night ). The PVV has such terrible policy that they would make a mess in government and people vote in droves for Wilders, but at the same time VVD policy is negative to what I'm assuming is the majority of VVD voters who vote. Which one would be delusional and which one would be just plain ignorance we can all individually decide.

Yeah.. I want neither of them in power, though I think I do prefer VVD over PVV any day of the week.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
To be honest for all I care Ukraine can burn together with its corruption, Neo-Nazis, mass homophobia and who knows what else is going on there.

Still if Russia annexes everything things will get a little bit awkward, another border to look after and defend for NATO.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
To be honest for all I care Ukraine can burn together with its corruption, Neo-Nazis, mass homophobia and who knows what else is going on there.

Still if Russia annexes everything things will get a little bit awkward, another border to look after and defend for NATO.

Soladrin wrote:Russia has standards?

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:
To be honest for all I care Ukraine can burn together with its corruption, Neo-Nazis, mass homophobia and who knows what else is going on there.

Still if Russia annexes everything things will get a little bit awkward, another border to look after and defend for NATO.

Couldn't you just replace Ukraine with Russia and still have the same valid statement. Yet we would interact with Russia and not Ukraine despite these reasons, with the (despicable) events that occurred.