Turnout: 51.54%
About this election
On 21 March 2018, alongside the municipal elections, the Netherlands held an advisory referendum on the Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 — a new law widely nicknamed the "sleepwet", or "dragnet law", because it expanded the security services' powers to intercept internet traffic in bulk. It was the second and, as it turned out, the last referendum held under the 2015 Advisory Referendum Act. Voters narrowly rejected the law, by 49.44% to 46.53%, on a turnout boosted by the concurrent local elections.
As with the 2016 Ukraine vote, the referendum was triggered by a citizens' petition under the Advisory Referendum Act, was non-binding, and required a turnout of at least 30% for its result to count politically. The law in question had already been passed by parliament; the referendum asked voters whether they were for or against it, leaving the final decision with the legislature.
The petition originated with a group of students from the University of Amsterdam concerned about privacy, and the campaign was led by civil-liberties and digital-rights advocates. They warned that the law's bulk interception powers ("sleepnet") amounted to mass surveillance, that oversight was inadequate, and that intercepted data could be shared with foreign intelligence agencies. The government and security services countered that the powers were necessary to counter terrorism and cyber-threats and were subject to new safeguards and an independent review body.
On a turnout of 51.54% — comfortably above the threshold, helped by the simultaneous municipal vote — 49.44% voted against the law and 46.53% in favour, with the remainder casting blank ballots. It was a narrow but clear "no", the second consecutive rejection of a government-backed measure under the referendum law.
The Rutte III government chose not to scrap the law but to amend it, promising additional safeguards on the retention and sharing of bulk data and on oversight, before bringing the act into force. Frustrated by two successive defeats it felt were driven more by anti-establishment sentiment than by the substance of the questions, the government pressed ahead with abolishing the Advisory Referendum Act later in 2018 — so this vote became the final national referendum held under it. The debate over surveillance powers and privacy, however, continued in the courts and in subsequent revisions of the intelligence law.
The vote took place under the Advisory Referendum Act of 2015, which let 300,000 citizens force a non-binding national vote on most newly adopted laws. The instrument was used exactly twice: in 2016, when voters rejected the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement, and in 2018 on the intelligence law. Within months of this second rebuff the Rutte III government abolished the act — making the 'sleepwet' vote both the second and the last national referendum of its kind in the Netherlands, and turning the vote itself into a small piece of constitutional history.
The Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 replaced a 2002 framework written for the dial-up era. Its core innovation — and the source of the 'dragnet' nickname — was to allow bulk, untargeted interception of internet traffic on the cable, where the old law confined such collection to the airwaves. It paired those powers with new safeguards: a new review board (the TIB) had to approve taps in advance, the existing CTIVD oversight committee gained stronger powers, and intercepted data was subject to retention limits and rules on sharing with foreign partners. The campaign turned on whether those safeguards were adequate — critics focused on the three-year retention window and on sharing unevaluated data abroad.
Polling day was deliberately the day of the nationwide municipal elections, which carried participation past the 30% validity threshold that advisory referendums required — turnout reached roughly half the electorate, far above the quorum. The result was genuinely narrow, with No ahead of Yes by about three points and blank votes deciding nothing: enough to embarrass the government, not enough to force more than adjustments to the law.
Official results from the Electoral Council (Kiesraad) — kiesraad.nl.
Compiled and reviewed by Bartłomiej Paruzel, Election Data Analyst, from official results. See our data methodology.