Circling round the subject

There seems to be far too much ink (metaphorically speaking) spilled on matters to do with the Brexit referendum but occasionally there might be something to add even by this blog. For example, there is the question of what is to be done (as both Chernyshevsky and Lenin asked in their day) with the leaflet so thoughtfully sent out by HMG to every household in which the said households were being chided to do the right thing and vote to remain in the European Union.

It so happens that I was discussing that very point with a friend on the phone when the postman hove into view and delivered my copy of it. I suppose before I do anything I ought to have a look at it but, somehow, the mood is not upon me. 

Is this actually legal I ask. After all, MPs and Councillors are not allowed to use official facilities to conduct election campaigns and HMG is not allowed to send out leaflets telling the benighted voters to vote for them because they are so wonderful though, clearly, a government in place has certain advantages over the opposition in matters electoral. Why are they allowed to use official facilities and, thus, taxpayers' money to tell us which way to vote in a referendum? 

Anyway, everything has been said on that subject as well so the only question that remains is what is one to do with this document. I am afraid the paper is a little too shiny for my cats' litter tray (they don't like it); Nigel Farage's advice, as usual, is of no use as it is not in an envelope and, therefore, cannot simply be returned to sender; I have no desire to spend money on the postage. 

I could put it in an envelope, address it the Rt Hon. David Cameron, 10, Downing Street etc and put no stamps on it or stamps that add up to some minimal tiny amount, thus forcing the flunkeys to pay for the postage. If a few hundred thousand of us did it, there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction in Number 10. Or, perhaps, one of the organizations, say Vote Leave or Grassroots Out (GO), could issue a call to collect as many of these leaflets as possible and then deliver them to the gates of Downing Street in a van or lorry. I have not heard of such an initiative so I have to make some kind of a decision myself. 

Meanwhile, we have had a great deal of excitement about the Dutch Referendum that rejected the Ukraine-European Union treaty and the highly predictable fact that the EU is going to ignore it. To be fair, it is hard to see what the EU can do about this. Even as far as the Dutch government is concerned a referendum in that country is advisory but it would be a foolish Dutch politician who ignored it. As far as the EU is concerned 32 per cent of the Dutch electorate is not of any real importance. Nor is it of importance from a democratic point of view. They are a tiny minority of the EU's population and even 64 per cent of that tiny minority does not amount to much. Exactly whom do they represent? Slightly more people than the Eurocrats do but not by much. One cannot have a referendum about something those who are asked are not in control of.

All this shows the dangers of direct as opposed to representative democracy. Those who whine about "not being represented" by our elected representatives had better consider the possibilities of major decisions being taken in the wake of completely unrepresentative direct plebiscites. 

Of course, it is unpleasant to have any section of the people saying NO to whatever they are told is good for them. Does this show growing euroscepticism in Holland or a general fed-upness with yet more migrants from Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the figures tell you nothing. But it is worth noting that 68 per cent may not have turned out to vote against the agreement but neither did they turn out to vote for it. So, perhaps, dissatisfaction is genuinely growing. 

Is Albania coming in?

Well not for a long long time if the Dutch Parliament has anything to do with it.

The Dutch parliament has voted against a government proposal to grant Albania the status of EU candidate, preventing EU leaders from rubberstamping the proposal during a summit in Brussels on 19-20 December.

The Dutch parliament adopted yesterday (12 December) a decision which obliges the government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte to reject the European Commission proposal to give Albania EU candidate status.

The development is likely to inflict a heavy blow to the accession hopes of the Western Balkan nation, which according to the Commission has delivered on EU requirements and so should be granted the status of candidate country.

It would seem that the Dutch Parliament is also unhappy with Romania and Bulgaria becoming part of Schengen though the Commission (that has, on numerous occasions, withheld funds from those two countries because of widespread corruption) thinks that they have now fulfilled the necessary criteria.

Apparently, it is not working

One of the self-avowed purposes of the European project has been the annihilation of bad things in European history, such as racism, xenophobia, tendency to go to war and so on. In fact, given the emphasis given to something rather vaguely described as "European values", one could argue that these values are to be used in order to overcome European history's rather less valuable aspects. Europeans, runs the argument, cannot be trusted to uphold and promote those values unless all these organizations are set up; Europeans need to be saved from themselves and their history through the official  promotion of European values.

By 2008, that is fifty years after the founding of what was first known as the EEC, the situation became so bad that a Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law was put together. This was going to solve the problem once and for all. But  has it?

Well, one can argue about the effect it has had on domestic legislation and, indeed, we should discuss that. For the moment let me call attention to two items of news (apart from what is going on in Hungary, on which more will be written).

The first item comes from the Independent, so one may have to take it with a grain of salt but, if the results of the opinion poll conducted by Der Standard, a respected Viennese newspaper, are reported accurately, one can feel a trifle glum about Austria, a country that has, on the whole been admirable in its political stance since the Second World War, particularly in its readiness to help refugees from the other totalitarian system.

As Austria prepares to mark the anniversary of its annexation by Nazi Germany, an opinion poll has shown that more than half of the population think it highly likely that the Nazis would be elected if they were readmitted as a party.

A further 42 per cent agreed with the view that life “wasn’t all bad under the Nazis”, and 39 per cent said they thought a recurrence of anti-Semitic persecution was likely in Austria.

Of course, that does mean, as Russia Today points out that

Fifty-seven per cent of respondents believed that "there was nothing positive about the Hitler era".

As to sixty-one per cent wanting a "strong leader", I do not find that particularly worrying. People  in many countries, Britain included, seem to want strong leaders all the time, without going too deeply into what a strong leader might do.

The Independent gives more details and calls them "damning".

Neighbouring Germany’s popular “Stern” magazine described the poll’s findings as shocking today. The poll also showed that 61 per cent of Austrian adults wanted to see a “strong man” in charge of government, and 54 per cent said they thought it would be “highly likely” that the Nazis would win seats in they were allowed to take part in an election.

Some 46 per cent of those polled said they believed Austria was a victim of Nazi oppression in 1938, while 61 per cent said they believed that “enough” had been done to reappraise Austria’s Nazi past.

The last paragraph is, perhaps, a little muddled but probably reflects Austrian opinion in general. At the same time, it might be useful if the Indy made it clear, as RT did, that the poll asked the vast number of 502 people. The results may be worrying, though not exactly shocking, but do they reflect Austrian opinion at all accurately in all particulars?

An even more disturbing video comes from the Netherlands, though, once again, it is hard to tell how widespread the problem is though the fact that they have picked up on the meme about Palestinians being murdered by Jews (ahem, what of Black September of what is going on in Syria) would indicate that these  youngsters are of the "nice" middle of the road soft-left persuasion.

A video that appeared on Dutch TV recently shows a roundtable of adults and children discussing Jews. The children praise Hitler and his genocidal inclinations. One of the boys says, “on the one hand I am satisfied with what Hitler did with the Jews…” while another responds that Hitler was justified in killing millions of Jews because “now millions of Palestinians are being killed.”

The four young boys are joined in a roundtable by an older gentleman (identified as Mehmet Sahin, a researcher at Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit) who repeatedly challenges their assertions. When one of the boys asks the interviewer if he hates Jews, they seem surprised when he responds in the negative.

Later, the same boy who originally praised Hitler, says, ” as far as I’m concerned Hitler should have killed all Jews, ” a remark that merited laughs from the group of boys.

The interviewer, who repeatedly expresses his indignation at the boys’ opinions, ask them where they got their hatred for the Jews from–”from friends” they answer, noting that the term “Jew” is used as a curse word and that nobody at their school likes Jews.

And we know what the answer is to all these possible problems: more EU legislation.{Hey! That was a joke!]

The EU is easily pleased

The things that please the EU are numerous: decisions to buy up worthless bonds, complicated pronouncements by the German Constitutional Court and, now, the somewhat doubtful (from their point of view) result in the Dutch election.

Whoppee, whooppee, they are saying: the pro-EU parties have triumphed.

The outcome of elections in the Netherlands was greeted with relief elsewhere in Europe as an unexpected vote of confidence in the EU, with voters shunning eurosceptic candidates on the far right and far left and turning towards mainstream parties that have backed eurozone rescue measures.

Rather than punishing Mark Rutte, the Liberal party prime minister, for approving bailout packages for Greece and Spain, the Dutch re-elected him and awarded his conservative party with its largest-ever share of the vote.

The centre-left Labour party did almost as well, after a summer in which leftwing voters appeared to have rejected it for the eurosceptic Socialists.

Meanwhile, the anti-European campaign run by far-right populist Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV) was a failure, as his vote share dropped to 10 per cent from 16 per cent in 2010.

Brussels must be so happy, someone commented without, apparently, any irony. But not everything in the garden is rosy.

It seems that, in order to get the vote, the two top parties borrowed more of their "more extreme" rivals' ideas. Specifically, the Liberals campaigned on a far more eurosceptic platform than they have ever done and it will be difficult to row back from that.

The problem of how those two parties, now further apart than ever before, might manage to form a coalition remains. I predict some fun and games in the weeks to come.

Well, you pays your money and you takes your choice

The Dutch election results can be described as pro-euro parties sweep Dutch poll, according to Reuters and the Guardian or fragile coalition is expected according to the Daily Telegraph with "major gains for hard-line Euro-sceptics". So far these are all projections but these tend to be reasonably accurate.

In the poll, which has been watched closely across Europe because of its potential impact on the euro crisis, Rutte's VVD took 41 seat to Labour's 40 in the 150-seat chamber, with both parties gaining 10 seats on the 2010 election. The big losers were the Freedom party, headed by maverick far-right populist Geert Wilders, which slumped from 24 to 13 seats, according to projections, and the Christian Democrats, the traditional powerbrokers of Dutch politics, who collapsed from 21 to 13 seats.

Final results tomorrow but the chances are there will now be months of wrangling over the formation of the government with everyone trying to freeze the Freedom Party out of the negotiations.

But will this break EU rules?

In one of the funniest stories that has come out of the Netherlands recently, the government is planning to control the liberal marijuana laws of the country by restricting its open use in cafes to Dutch residents only, thus effectively turning the coffee shops in question into private clubs with a membership of around 2,000 each.

A judge in the Hague district court has ruled that the government's proposal is entirely legal though an appeal is being planned by the owners of the coffee shops.

Without going into the rights and wrongs of the case, I have a question or two: will the European Commission take the Dutch government to the ECJ for introducing legislation that legally discriminates against EU citizens of other member states (or, indeed, residents of other member states) and will the ECHR rule on the subject, with regards to the rights to family existence by people who are not resident in the Netherlands but whose relatives are and who want to smoke cannabis together?

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands

The crisis goes on and the government has either resigned or about to resign. The Guardian's constant update is quite useful but, by definition, cannot give clear answers as it has to provide minutiae. For example stating as a certainty what one opinion poll has predicted at a time of see-sawing opinion, is asking for trouble.

The Financial Times is certain that Mark Ruttke will be resigning as the austerity talks have come to nothing and Geert Wilders continues in his refusal to support the government. Much laughter and schadenfreue in Brussels, according to the Wall Street Journal with Neelie Kroes also attacking Wilders.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands ...

... the government is in trouble.

The liberal and conservative Dutch government cabinet holds an emergency meeting on Monday after talks on a £7 billion cuts package, demanded by the EU under eurozone budget deficit rules, broke down at the weekend. Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister, a Liberal, will try to find support for austerity measures with the opposition Labour Party this week but will have to offer early elections in September in return.

Apparently, the crisis was caused by Geert Wilders withdrawing his support from the government, arguing "against Europe, against the euro". If he has seen the light, I am going to take some credit for that, as I was instructed by Lord Pearson during Mr Wilders's visit to enlighten the man about the EU. I did my best but did not think I had succeeded. Who knows? I may have been more successful than I had realized.

Sanity in sight?

As predicted, Geert Wilders has been acquitted of hate speech and discrimination (whatever that may mean). Lots of links but here is an American one that is relatively objective. Bloomberg mentions in the first paragraph that this farce has lasted for three years. Mr Wilders's comments "fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate", according to the judge. And so I should think. Ed West is absolutely right: the mere fact that this trial took place is a disgrace. One can only surmise that the Dutch legal system has nothing else to deal with.

Are they going to draw a line?

There is a general acceptance that Geert Wilders will be acquitted tomorrow on all charges after 29 months of legal struggle, which occasionally tipped over into black farce. Radio Netherlands gives quite a good summary of the developments here, explaining that, in the end it is the Dutch legal system that has found itself on trial.

Judicial system damaged
In the end, it was not Islam but the Dutch judicial system that came under the spotlight during the course of the trial. Three developments in particular have damaged the credibility of the judicial establishment.

First, the ruling of the Amsterdam court to prosecute Wilders was controversial in and of itself. The court made the ruling only after a special team at the national public prosecutor’s office had repeatedly decided not to prosecute Mr Wilders. This exposed an internal struggle between the district court and the justice ministry.

In that struggle, Amsterdam won the first round by forcing the trial to take place. But the justice ministry pushed back. They assigned two members of that same special team to conduct the prosecution at the trial in Amsterdam. Thus, Geert Wilders’ prosecutors were already on record as opposing his prosecution. And, indeed, during the trial they used the same argument, calling for Mr Wilders to be acquitted.

Attempt to silence Wilders
The second development was brought on by Mr Wilders’ defence. He and his lawyer have claimed that this trial is a politically motivated attempt to silence him. A strong accusation. But this claim became more plausible when the initial three judges hearing the trial were ruled to have demonstrated possible bias against Mr Wilders.

The trial had to resume with three new judges, but not before the Amsterdam district court went through an intensive process of self-reflection and public criticism.

That leaves the third development, one which again put the judicial system in a bad light: ‘the dinner’. For a few months, the trial focused on a social gathering involving the judge who wrote the decision to prosecute Mr Wilders and one of the three expert witnesses called by the defence. Allegations of witness tampering were shown to be unfounded, but the judge, and by extension the entire Amsterdam district court, came out looking naïve and amateurish.

Al-Jazeera agrees that Mr Wilders is likely to be acquitted. Their view is that the ending of this case will not end the debate about freedom of speech in the Netherlands (and, indeed, why should it?).

Whatever the verdict will be on Thursday, it seems clear that the debate about the limits of freedom of speech in the Netherlands will not be over.

Bas Paternotte, a political journalist for HP/De Tijd magazine and a frequent contributor to the highly popular right-wing shock-blog Geenstijl, argues that the Dutch political climate has shifted significantly over the past years.

"Fifteen years ago, Hans Janmaat [another extreme-right Dutch politician] was convicted for saying he wanted to abolish multiculturalism. Last week, the government said that multiculturalism has failed and that it will cut financial support for minority target groups. This is an evolution in thinking and political action and maybe the trial against Wilders is part of that same evolution."

This blog has followed the Wilders case (here, here partially, and here) as well as writing about Mr Wilders's electoral success, the attacks on him that, shamefully, included ones from the British media and his visit to Westminster to show his film Fitna to MPs and peers. Any reader who wishes to revisit those stories can follow this link.

Not guilty!

Through the Corner on the National Review website to Dutch News.nl

The public prosecution department on Friday afternoon stated that Geert Wilders is not guilty of discriminating against Muslims. Earlier on Friday it announced he should also be found not guilty of inciting hatred.

Prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman reached their conclusions after a careful reading of interviews with and articles by the anti-Islam politician and a viewing of his anti-Koran film Fitna.

Why they could not have done that careful reading and viewing before, instead of trying to ban the film, I cannot imagine. Then again, Geert Wilders has acquired a great deal of political clout recently and, just possibly, this has been noticed.

Of course, he will still have to have round the clock protection as his life is still in danger.

Partial victory

I still have not caught up quite with developments in various EU member states such as the Netherlands, Sweden and France (where public sector strikes over pension reforms are in their second day). However, it is good to be able to report that there is a partial victory in the Geert Wilders case.

Through Atlas Shrugged I have found the Radio Netherlands report that informs us of the Dutch Public Prosecutors dropping the charge group defamation.

Public prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman now say his comments on the Qur’an referred to Islam and its holy book, and not to Muslim people.

In explaining their call for acquittal on the defamation charges, the prosecutors also explained that statements contained in the MP’s film, Fitna, referred to Islam as a religion and not to its followers. Even though the statements could hurt the feelings of Muslims, that was not the same as defamation of the group.

On Friday we shall see whether the charge of inciting hatred and discrimination (in effect exercising free speech as Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains in her article in the Wall Street Journal) will be pressed.

Dutch government farce continues

A slightly incoherent piece on EUObserver tells us that a minority government may well be formed in the Netherlands very soon. Geert Wilders's Freedom Party (PVV), described here as "far-right", presumably because it is against the destruction of real liberalism, will not be part of it but has promised to support it on a case-by-case basis. In return, the government will attempt to impose some control on immigration.

Interestingly, the Financial Times is a little more cautious about labels and describes Geert Wilders merely as being anti-Islamic. Even that is not entirely accurate as this blog has pointed out before but it will have to do as a short-hand. In general, both pieces (and other articles) agree: Mr Wilders has gained a great deal. He will have no formal cabinet role and no cabinet discipline. He has shown himself to be a reasonable politicians, ready to back a centre-right government but has not had to surrender his core principles. Indeed, he will be able to speak out on them if the agreement goes ahead.

Last month Geert Wilders was nominated for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by Dutch MEP, Barry Madlener. Named after the great Soviet physicist and political dissident Andrei Sakharov, the prize has had a chequered history. Most of those who received it did so deservedly, though they were not always in danger of their lives when they spoke out, but I cannot but wonder at the idiocy of awarding it to the United Nations and SecGen Kofi Annan who presided over some of the worst scandals, in 2003.

Curious

The Guardian tells us that the Dutch election result produced an even more fragmented result than usual but the outcome might be a good thing. Coalitions are a new thing in Britain (not precisely if one looks at nineteenth century history but let that pass) but in the Netherlands it is the stuff of politics. Why that should be considered something to emulate is not clear.

Never mind. The Guardian does not see this result as a good outcome for the Right or the Centre Right. No, indeed.

A less exciting but more accurate reading of Wednesday's result would be that the votes of the centre-left parties held up, while those of the right splintered both to the Liberals and the Freedom party. Indisputably the Christian Democrats were the big losers. In an election dominated not by immigration but by the economy and the deficit, Dutch voters could therefore be said to have opted for fiscal austerity with a social conscience, much as British voters did a month ago. This leaves the Liberals well placed to govern with the centre-left in what would here be called a progressive coalition.

Furthermore, let us not get over-excited about Geert Wilders's party.

Dutch voters have not given Mr Wilders a mandate to govern, and he should certainly not now be rewarded with one.

Given the Dutch system, that is not exactly accurate since a third party is often in the Cabinet. In Britain, on the other hand, the Lib-Dims were most definitely not given a mandate to govern, coming third and losing seats. Yet, somehow, they have been rewarded with that mandate and the Guardian seems very happy about that.

Whither the Dutch government?

Eighty eight per cent of the votes have been counted in the Netherlands, according to the Telegraph report this morning, and the result is promising to be very interesting. Setting aside the newspaper's mindlessly repetitive description of Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV)as being "far-right" because it wants to control immigration of people who have no desire to adapt to the country's very liberal culture, what the article tells us ought to make a lot of people sit up.

With 88 per cent of the votes counted, published partial results showed the Liberals with 31 and Labour on 30.

But the real victory went to Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV), which demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques. The PVV took its number of seats from nine in the last parliament to 24, and could hope to enter a coalition government.

Mark Rutte, the Liberal leader may have the mandage to become Prime Minister but he will need at least three other parties to secure the necessary majority in Parliament. He can, of course, leave out the PVV but that is likely to cause a few problems. Geert Wilders said quite firmly when he was in London that he did not mind leading the largest party in opposition.

AP suggests, on the basis of 93 per cent counted, that

The most likely outcome appears to be a centrist coalition with VVD and Labor combining with two smaller parties on the left, the Green-Left and Democrats-66, who both won 10 seats.

Yet neither the top two parties will be able to form a government without major compromises on ideology.

The VVD has pledged to slash the deficit by cutting government spending and welfare programs while Labor has criticized the program as harmful to the poor.

Labor wants to preserve government social programs, raise taxes on the wealthy and make it easier for immigrants to integrate rather than punishing those that fail.
Although not as outspoken against immigration as Wilders, Rutte has also argued that immigrants who cannot contribute to the Dutch economy should not be allowed to come, and he would ban them from receiving welfare for 10 years after arrival.

In the meantime, the ousted PM, Jan Peter Balkenende stays on as caretaker Prime Minister. What a good thing that this sort of a messy situation cannot happen in Britain. Oh wait ....

UPDATE: The talk is now of a Centre-Right coalition government in the Netherlands, which would included Geert Wilders. We shall see. In the meantime, I have spotted a truly idiotic headline on Sky News website: Far-Right Breakthrough Shocks Netherlands. Remind me, how did that far-right breakthrough happen?

That's the spirit

Mary Ellen Synon sums up the Icelandic saga (pun intended), the people's opposition to EU membership and the bullying that is being done by the Dutch and, I am sad to say, British governments to bring those people to heel and bankrupt them because of others' greed.

I, too, have been in touch with Hjortur J. Gudmundsson and I asked him if he demonstrated Viking martial arts. For some reason he found that quite funny.

Meanwhile, the Dutch government has fallen because of deep-seated disagreement about Dutch troops (that have performed extremely well according to Michael Yon) in Afghanistan. Yon thinks, incidentally, that the troops are very unhappy at the politicians' attitude and feel that they have been betrayed. (Um, I think that was on one of his Facebook updates. Here is the link to his website, anyway.) Wouldn't be the first time in political and military history. Elections in the Netherlands on June 1. And, of course, elections here on May 6. The Icelanders are not dealing with any permanent or even long-term political entity.