THE HAGUE — Referendums make the Dutch establishment nervous. Eleven years ago, the country rejected plans to give the EU greater powers through a European Constitution, embarrassing the government and forcing a rethink in Brussels.

History could repeat itself Wednesday.

When Dutch voters go to the polls to decide whether the EU should work more closely with Ukraine, the stakes will not be as high as they were in 2005. But the government wants desperately to avoid a No vote. It would be awkward coming as the Netherlands holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Ministers. And it could help fuel the Euroskeptic movement across Europe.

For many, this is not a referendum on an EU-Ukraine "association agreement," as the treaty to strengthen economic and political ties is known. It's a vote on the EU and on the Dutch government itself.

Geert Wilders, the controversial leader of the far-right Freedom Party, launched a campaign in March called EUKRAINEE — a combination of EU, Ukraine and Nee (the Dutch word for no).

"This referendum is about more than just the agreement between the EU and Ukraine. It is a chance for the Netherlands to show a counter-message. A vote against the deal equals a vote against [Prime Minister Mark] Rutte and the Brussels elite," says a statement on the Freedom Party's website.

Tony van der Togt, senior research fellow at the Netherlands' Institute for International Relations, says Wilders and others appear to be having success with this anti-EU approach. He said Ukraine is the first country to be tied up in a referendum "in which people can use their vote as a way of protesting against the EU. The EU has many of these economic deals with countries like Moldova and Georgia and we have never heard anyone complaining about that. Anti-EU sentiments make it uncomfortable [for the government], because that is not the aim of this deal.”

For most of the campaign, the Yes camp has been content with the occasional advert or flyer to get its message across. A government document that showed the cabinet's low-key referendum strategy was leaked to broadcaster RTL in February. In it, ministers were asked to emphasize the benefits of the agreement for “ordinary Ukrainians” and Dutch trade, while arguments about discontent with the EU should be avoided.

But with opinion polls putting the No camp ahead, the Yes backers only recently acknowledged they need to make an effort.

In recent days, more and more cabinet ministers are appearing before the television cameras to explain the positives of the deal. Another document leaked to RTL revealed that members of the cabinet were asked to send out "stemfies" (a combination of "selfie" and "stem," the Dutch word for vote) on election day and to send out at least one tweet a day prior to the referendum.

Petitions that gather more than 300,000 signatures have to be put to the public.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the government has refrained from running a "traditional" election-style campaign because the plebiscite is a matter for the people.

Also, the vote is being held because of a law passed in 2015 under which petitions that gather more than 300,000 signatures have to be put to the public. This is the first time the law has been used — thanks to GeenPeil, an initiative set up by a far-right, Euroskeptic website called GeenStijl, which collected more than 400,000 signatures in just six weeks last fall. But petitions can be started at any time, and the government is wary of the potential costs of future referendum campaigns.

The foreign ministry spokesperson said the cabinet's position is clear: the Dutch parliament has already voted in favor of the association agreement. So have the parliaments in all 27 other EU states.

The result of the referendum is non-binding, but a No vote, combined with a turnout of more than 30 percent, will mean the Ukraine deal has to at least be discussed again by the parliament. That would shed unwelcome light on the Netherlands and likely fuel support for Wilders and his allies.

Waffle diplomacy

The government may have been playing it cool, but grassroots campaigning has been in full force.

Organizations and citizens could apply for campaign funding, a total of €2 million of taxpayers' money, no matter how small-scale their plans. More than 100 groups and individuals received funding: Some spent it on handing out flyers and traditional stroopwafels, others printed toilet paper covered with arguments against the agreement.

A challenge for both sides is a lack of understanding about what the deal means. Many Dutch voters are unaware that the agreement focuses on trade and closer ties between the EU and Ukraine rather than on Kiev taking a step towards EU membership.

Ukrainian students campaigned last week on the train between The Hague and Rotterdam and at universities, in a bid to inform people about what the deal would mean for them: equality, tolerance and democratic values, they say.

If the government has seemed a little nervous during the campaign, it's understandable, says Van der Togt of the Institute for International Relations. "It is based on the lessons learned from the referendum on the EU constitution in 2005.”

In 2005, the center-right government of Jan Peter Balkenende vigorously backed a Yes campaign, with disastrous results, throwing the effort at greater European integration into disarray.

More than 60 percent voted No to a European Constitution. The level of opposition, and the turnout of 62 percent, exceeded all projections. The No vote came just three days after a similar rejection by the French.

The Dutch revolt was without parallel. For 50 years, the Netherlands had been a stronghold of European integration.

Balkenende swiftly conceded defeat and acknowledged that there was a gap between politicians and the people. "The idea of Europe has lived for the politicians, but not the Dutch people," he said. "That will have to change."

"Campaigning actively can be used against you,” said Van der Togt. “People could use the vote as a vote against government policy. So if your campaign is too pushy, this can become a risk.”

Michiel van Hulten, former chairman of the Dutch Labour party and MEP, and now part of the Vote For Netherlands campaign, agrees. "The trauma of 2005 plays a big role. But if those politicians that signed the agreement in the first place are not willing to defend it now, who will?”

"The No campaign were given free rein for about six months," Van Hulten said. "But it is certainly possible to convince people when concentrating on the content."

Laura Kroet is a freelance journalist based in The Hague.