For a glimpse at why so many are so cynical about the European Union, feature what happened this week at the Netherlands. Lowlands voters were asked to ratify, in a referendum, a treaty on closer political and economical ties between the EU and Ukraine. It’s fine with us either way, incidentally, but in the privacy of the voting booth, 64% of those who cast ballots rejected a treaty. How did the government of the Netherlands, the EU itself, and the bien pensant newspapers react? They plumped for implementing the agreement anyhow, even if it was rejected by voters.

What’re the voters, chopped liver? The Financial Times is out with an editorial calling the Dutch vote an embarrassment for both Europe and Ukraine. No doubt about it. The FT tries to palm off on its noble readers the idea that the result was unconvincing because only 32% of the Netherlands’ eligible voters went to the polls (by that measure New York hasn’t had a duly elected mayor in years). Then again, too, the referendum itself was organized by skeptics of the “European project,” so the Dutch could have rallied to stop it. The logical conclusion is that they didn’t want to.

Not that the mandarins of Europe give a fig. On the eve of the vote, the Guardian issued an editorial arguing against referendums in general. They’re “often tricky,” it warned, and it warned referendums are “arguably a bad habit for Europe to develop.” It noted that this is the first time since 2005 that the dejected Dutch had the “opportunity to express their feelings about the EU.” Of course, back then the Netherlands rejected the European constitution itself and on a turnout nearly twice that in Wednesday’s vote. The constitution was promptly imposed on them anyhow.

Far be it from the Sun to advocate direct democracy. We favor republicanism in the sense that George Washington and the boys believed in it. They feared government by kings and mob rule. But they won the day because they promised — and wrote a constitution to ensure — that the powers granted to government would be severely limited. All too many of our troubles have stemmed from attempts by the government to breach that contract. And it’s refreshing to see Europe bridling against the long campaign in Brussels to crush the constituent countries, a point that has again been marked by the doughty Dutch.

We will see if Britons show similar gumption. Their referendum is more far-reaching than the one just held across the channel. It involves the question of whether Britain should remain in the EU at all. President Obama is, incredibly, getting ready to go to Britain to campaign against a British vote in favor of its independence. He wants it to bow to the statist, socialist regime in Brussels. What the referenda in the Netherlands in 2005 and 2016 suggest is that even if the British declare against the European Union, the governments might plunge ahead anyhow — a prescription for big trouble ahead.