Geert Wilders' victory in Netherlands election spooks Europe

[CharlieH]

 

The unexpectedly meaty win for controversial, hard-right politician Geert Wilders in Wednesday's general election in the Netherlands set international headlines on fire.

Right-wing nationalists across Europe rushed to congratulate the populist politician, sometimes dubbed the Dutch Trump - partly for his dyed, bouffant-like hairdo, and partly for his famously firebrand rhetoric.

Geert Wilders' publicly expressed views - including linking Muslim immigration with terrorism and calling for a ban on mosques and the Quran - are so provocative that he has been under tight police protection since 2004.

Wilders was convicted of inciting discrimination, although later acquitted, and he was refused entry to the UK back in 2009.

But Europe's far right believes their views have now become more mainstream.

 

• Anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders wins Dutch election
• Who is Geert Wilders and what does he want?

 

"The winds of change are here!" proclaimed Hungary's Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, after seeing the Dutch election results. He, like Geert Wilders, is big on anti-immigration themes, as well as Brussels-bashing Euroscepticism.

 

Far-right Flemish independence leader Tom Van Grieken, who hopes for a similar election breakthrough in Belgium to Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, was quick to conclude: "Parties like ours are on their way in the whole of Europe."

 

FULL STORY

 

[JonnyF]

Well I didn't see this one coming. It certainly seems like the indigenous people of Europe are getting sick and tired of their lily livered politicians selling them out by aiding and abetting the colonization of their homelands. Could it be they've finally seen the folly of repeating the "Diversity is our strength" mantra? Has the koolaid finally gone sour? 

 

Bad news for the EU. I wonder how long before the Nexit referendum...

[thaibeachlovers]

42 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Geert Wilders' publicly expressed views - including linking Muslim immigration with terrorism and calling for a ban on mosques and the Quran

LOL. No doubt he'll have lots of support among a certain demographic of AN posters active on the "war in israel" sub forum.

 

I don't know too much about him, but he is described as anti illegal immigration, so IMO can't be all bad.

[thaibeachlovers]

46 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Far-right Flemish independence leader Tom Van Grieken, who hopes for a similar election breakthrough in Belgium

Oh dear, should the EU leadership be looking for a different location to put their unelected cabal of bureaucrats?

[JonnyF]

50 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Geert Wilders' publicly expressed views - including linking Muslim immigration with terrorism

 

He can't say that!!!! Absolutely shocking.

 

Whatever next? Linking rain with water? The desert with sand? The sun with heat? 

 

I'm literally shaking right now.

[herfiehandbag]

He got the biggest share of the vote, and the biggest share of seats, by quite a long way, it would seem.

 

I somehow doubt that means he will be in government- the new Netherlands government will probably look rather like the old Netherlands government!

 

It's not just here!

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well I didn't see this one coming. It certainly seems like the indigenous people of Europe are getting sick and tired of their lily livered politicians selling them out by aiding and abetting the colonization of their homelands. Could it be they've finally seen the folly of repeating the "Diversity is our strength" mantra? Has the koolaid finally gone sour? 

 

Bad news for the EU. I wonder how long before the Nexit referendum...

Given what you know, what you said might make sense to you, but unfortunately for you and many others , what you know is not the full picture. 

When trump was elected, I often posted that trump was a danger, but that he was not the real danger. 

The real danger is that the players saw how much more  they can get away with, and how much the electorate would buy.

and players will be players,

I said, "one way of another trump will go away, but trump wannabes will always be around. and now they have a new play, in their play book" 

And we see this play all around the world. 

   Most countries are depopulating, this is a fact, first world women are not having enough children. That is a fact.

The US has an advantage in this paradigm, they have an immigrant culture, and are a desirable immigrant   destination, so they are able to maintain population and grow. 

If they are to survive as viable economies, European countries need to learn from the above lesson. Either have more children or replace your population with immigrants.

It is as simple as that. 

But the immigration issue is a wedge issue that players will use, and "players will be players" they will play every card they have, and Ethnocentrism is a card the hold. 

The Brits shot themselves in the foot by it, the Netherlands will shoot their foots also , and I am afraid that unless the immigration issue is addressed in a sustainable fashion, and a way that it is palatable to all involved, more countries are not far behind. 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Given what you know, what you said might make sense to you, but unfortunately for you and many others , what you know is not the full picture. 

When trump was elected, I often posted that trump was a danger, but that he was not the real danger. 

The real danger is that the players saw how much more  they can get away with, and how much the electorate would buy.

and players will be players,

I said, "one way of another trump will go away, but trump wannabes will always be around. and now they have a new play, in their play book" 

And we see this play all around the world. 

   Most countries are depopulating, this is a fact, first world women are not having enough children. That is a fact.

The US has an advantage in this paradigm, they have an immigrant culture, and are a desirable immigrant   destination, so they are able to maintain population and grow. 

If they are to survive as viable economies, European countries need to learn from the above lesson. Either have more children or replace your population with immigrants.

It is as simple as that. 

But the immigration issue is a wedge issue that players will use, and "players will be players" they will play every card they have, and Ethnocentrism is a card the hold. 

The Brits shot themselves in the foot by it, the Netherlands will shoot their foots also , and I am afraid that unless the immigration issue is addressed in a sustainable fashion, and a way that it is palatable to all involved, more countries are not far behind. 

Couple of points:

first world women are not having enough children.

 

It's not like they are cattle to be forcibly inseminated against their will. They have determined that having as many children or any children is no longer in their interests, and quite rightly so.

IMO it's rubbish to say that we need more people on the planet. We got by just fine in the 1950s with a fraction of the present population. The usual mantra is that we need more taxpayers to be able to support the elders, but when AI robotics is going to make multi millions in western countries unemployable that's a pointless argument. Alternatives were always going to be needed in a society with almost zero manual and even many middle class jobs to do.

 

The Brits shot themselves in the foot by it, the Netherlands will shoot their foots also , and I am afraid that unless the immigration issue is addressed in a sustainable fashion, and a way that it is palatable to all involved, more countries are not far behind. 

 

The Brits have not shot themselves in the foot. They just haven't managed to go about it in a way that is achievable, so far.

Allowing thousands of uneducated young men to enter any western country when AI robotics has barely started eliminating jobs is IMO madness. Thousands of unemployed youth is never a recipe for a harmonious society.

 

Given that western countries are unable to make certain countries control their population, either they make it good enough there that their citizens don't need to leave to find the "streets of gold", or they find ways to keep them out.

[stevenl]

There will be formed a majority government on the right. Wilders has already abandoned his anti muslim stance beefier the election, he'll also have to leave his anti EU stance if he wants to form that government.  It was not so much a shot to the right as it was a shift in between the right with the VVD and FvD losing big. But that right has moved a bit further right, same development we see in many countries with the centrist parties losing.

[JonnyF]

38 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Given what you know, what you said might make sense to you, but unfortunately for you and many others , what you know is not the full picture. 

When trump was elected, I often posted that trump was a danger, but that he was not the real danger. 

The real danger is that the players saw how much more  they can get away with, and how much the electorate would buy.

and players will be players,

I said, "one way of another trump will go away, but trump wannabes will always be around. and now they have a new play, in their play book" 

And we see this play all around the world. 

   Most countries are depopulating, this is a fact, first world women are not having enough children. That is a fact.

The US has an advantage in this paradigm, they have an immigrant culture, and are a desirable immigrant   destination, so they are able to maintain population and grow. 

If they are to survive as viable economies, European countries need to learn from the above lesson. Either have more children or replace your population with immigrants.

It is as simple as that. 

But the immigration issue is a wedge issue that players will use, and "players will be players" they will play every card they have, and Ethnocentrism is a card the hold. 

The Brits shot themselves in the foot by it, the Netherlands will shoot their foots also , and I am afraid that unless the immigration issue is addressed in a sustainable fashion, and a way that it is palatable to all involved, more countries are not far behind. 

 

Given the lack of housing, schooling etc. in the very small land space that is the UK, importing more people is folly. As the previous poster said, countries with far smaller populations than the UK are doing very well.

 

The solution is not to import young, unskilled men with often questionable ideologies and spending taxpayers money to house them and give them benefits while pandering to their often anti-semitic, sexist views. The solution is to control our borders and get the 1.4 million unemployed into jobs to fill the vacant positions and spend taxpayers money to help those genuinely in need (the elderly, the disabled, the sick etc.).

 

Britain did not shoot itself in the foot. It gave itself the tools to manage it's own fate. The fact that it is currently doing a less than stellar job of it does not mean that returning it's sovereignty was a mistake, it means that we need to do a better job of the opportunity that Brexit provided. The next 2 decades will see the decline of the EU as it's leading economy Germany is further hurt by the rise of Chinese manufacturing. Anyone who is looking has noticed it has already started. The natives are getting restless, and the recent election results in Netherlands, Italy etc. are just the start of a very difficult period. The chickens are coming home to roost, and they're not happy that their politicans are selling them out.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Britain did not shoot itself in the foot. It gave itself the tools to manage it's own fate. The fact that it is currently doing a less than stellar job of it does not mean that returning it's sovereignty was a mistake, it means that we need to do a better job of the opportunity that Brexit provided.

True, but when have politicians ever done anything well? IMO countries progress DESPITE politicians, NOT because of them.

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True, but when have politicians ever done anything well? IMO countries progress DESPITE politicians, NOT because of them.

 

One of many reasons I support a smaller, less intrusive form of politics and state control and a greater role for the free market and business.

 

The less politicians interfere in my daily life the better. 

[RayC]

Perhaps those of the opinion that the UK has no need of immigrants could explain why - having left the EU and now being fully in control of immigration - the UK government has simply decided to replace the work-shy, lazy EU nationals - who used to take all our jobs and scround off the British state (err ...🤔) - with lazy, scrounging Indians, Nigerians, Pakistanis and Ukrainians?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. No doubt he'll have lots of support among a certain demographic of AN posters active on the "war in israel" sub forum.

 

I don't know too much about him, but he is described as anti illegal immigration, so IMO can't be all bad.

 

I'm not for Wilders, think he's bad news (and bad hair style) - and that he'll probably be a failure at running a country. Some people are opposition at heart. The silver lining is that is must be confusing for posters such as @thaibeachlovers (example above). Same thing with Trump.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Britain did not shoot itself in the foot. It gave itself the tools to manage it's own fate. The fact that it is currently doing a less than stellar job of it does not mean that returning it's sovereignty was a mistake, it means that we need to do a better job of the opportunity that Brexit provided. The next 2 decades will see the decline of the EU as it's leading economy Germany is further hurt by the rise of Chinese manufacturing. Anyone who is looking has noticed it has already started. The natives are getting restless, and the recent election results in Netherlands, Italy etc. are just the start of a very difficult period. The chickens are coming home to roost, and they're not happy that their politicans are selling them out.

 

As I have pointed out continuously, imo the EU/UK sovereignty issue was basically a red herring. All this chaos to eliminate the 3% of EU legislation which we voted against up to 2016 from the UK stature book.

 

(Anyone seeking a link should go to the Fullfacts website. I've lost count of the number of times I've posted the link).

 

Brexiters keep insisting that it's not Brexit that is the problem but the way that it has been implemented. However, I've yet to see anyo posters here describe in any detail what different path could have - and presumably still should be - taken.

 

"The next two decades will see the decline of the EU ...". If by that you mean that, relative to the rest of the world, the member states of the EU will decline economically then I agree. What you conveniently forget to mention that so will the UK. However, due to its' size the EU as a collective, will still be a significant player on the world stage both economically and politically. Sadly, as an isolated medium-sized economy like the UK will not.

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

The US has an advantage in this paradigm, they have an immigrant culture, and are a desirable immigrant   destination, so they are able to maintain population and grow. 

If they are to survive as viable economies, European countries need to learn from the above lesson.

I doubt the indigenous people in the USA would agree with that.

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

All this chaos to eliminate the 3% of EU legislation which we voted against up to 2016 from the UK stature book.

 

You clearly don't understand what Brexit was about. It wasn't about the past, it was about the future. The EU has morphed from a simple trading bloc into a political project aimed at creating a United States of Europe. A federalist, anti-democratic project which the majority of UK citizens that cared enough to vote, could see and roundly rejected in one of the greatest examples of Democracy in recent history. We got out while the going was good. While we were still able to. 

 

There has been no chaos. Project Fear has been proven to be a lie. In fact, the UK economy is doing well and out performing many of it's European counterparts, including France and Germany. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/29/uk-economy-growth-france-germany-sunak-inflation/#:~:text=The UK economy has performed,a boost to Rishi Sunak.

 

Wilders victory is just more evidence that voters are rejecting the EU. Rightly so. Expect more to come. 

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

You clearly don't understand what Brexit was about. It wasn't about the past, it was about the future. The EU has morphed from a simple trading bloc into a political project aimed at creating a United States of Europe. A federalist, anti-democratic project which the majority of UK citizens that cared enough to vote, could see and roundly rejected in one of the greatest examples of Democracy in recent history. We got out while the going was good. While we were still able to. 

 

There has been no chaos. Project Fear has been proven to be a lie. In fact, the UK economy is doing well and out performing many of it's European counterparts, including France and Germany. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/29/uk-economy-growth-france-germany-sunak-inflation/#:~:text=The UK economy has performed,a boost to Rishi Sunak.

 

Wilders victory is just more evidence that voters are rejecting the EU. Rightly so. Expect more to come. 

 

Even Wilders himself didn't see that coming, so he can hardly be said to be riding a clear wave of sentiment. I suspect, much like brexit, it's the nutters who won it while the majority are turned off by the rantings of extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

 

I am glad to hear that, after all these years, the objective of brexit has finally been confirmed. But can you expand it beyond nebulous, meaningless soundbites? 

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

You clearly don't understand what Brexit was about. It wasn't about the past, it was about the future. The EU has morphed from a simple trading bloc into a political project aimed at creating a United States of Europe. A federalist, anti-democratic project which the majority of UK citizens that cared enough to vote, could see and roundly rejected in one of the greatest examples of Democracy in recent history. We got out while the going was good. While we were still able to. 

 

There has been no chaos. Project Fear has been proven to be a lie. In fact, the UK economy is doing well and out performing many of it's European counterparts, including France and Germany. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/29/uk-economy-growth-france-germany-sunak-inflation/#:~:text=The UK economy has performed,a boost to Rishi Sunak.

 

Wilders victory is just more evidence that voters are rejecting the EU. Rightly so. Expect more to come. 

 

Even Wilders himself didn't see that coming, so he can hardly be said to be riding a clear wave of sentiment. I suspect, much like brexit, it's the nutters who won it while the majority are turned off by the rantings of extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

 

I am glad to hear that, after all these years, the objective of brexit has finally been confirmed. But can you expand it beyond nebulous, meaningless soundbites? 

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

 

Double post

[Jingthing]

I guess the message to non far right wing extremist politicians is that they should take immigration policy more seriously if they don't want their country to be double Dutched.

[JonnyF]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I suspect, much like brexit, it's the nutters who won it while the majority are turned off by the rantings of extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

 

The majority (of those who cared enough to vote on Brexit) voted to leave the EU. The minority that wanted to stay, lost.  

 

I guess 7 years hasn't been long enough for you to comprehend that. Yours is a minority position.  

 

Let's hope Wilders gets his wish for a referendum on Nexit. The Dutch people deserve to be given a say on their country's future, the country's future lack of sovereignty. For anyone who wishes to deny them the right I have one question, what are you so afraid of?

[JonnyF]

53 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I guess the message to non far right wing extremist politicians is that they should take immigration policy more seriously if they don't want their country to be double Dutched.

 

Or maybe the message is that politicians should listen to and address the very real concerns of the electorate and not simply brand everyone who wants to control their borders and keep terrorists out of the country as "far right", "racist", "extremists" etc.? 

[jvs]

A lot of Dutch people have decided 'Enough is enough'!

There are places where normal Dutch citizens can not go out doors any more after dark and there are many more rapes,break inns etc.

Before you accuse me of being a hater you need to have experienced those things yourself.

For a Young couple to rent a house there are waiting lists up to ten years and more.

Crazy!

I am all for helping people who need asylum but over half of those that come in are just

gold diggers.

Should citizens of a country adjust to the whims of the asylum seekers?

Or should the AS adjust to their host country?

I really can understand the sentiment of the Dutch people but i do not think Wilders will or can do anything radical.

 

[candide]

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The majority (of those who cared enough to vote on Brexit) voted to leave the EU. The minority that wanted to stay, lost.  

 

I guess 7 years hasn't been long enough for you to comprehend that. Yours is a minority position.  

 

Let's hope Wilders gets his wish for a referendum on Nexit. The Dutch people deserve to be given a say on their country's future, the country's future lack of sovereignty. For anyone who wishes to deny them the right I have one question, what are you so afraid of?

Wilders' share of votes reflects the results of polls asking about Nexit, around 25%. Why waste time and money for a referendum about it?

[JonnyF]

50 minutes ago, candide said:

Wilders' share of votes reflects the results of polls asking about Nexit, around 25%. Why waste time and money for a referendum about it?

 

Well, nobody was predicting Wilders would win either, certainly not by that margin.

 

That's why we have elections instead of relying on polls. When people know they will be insulted/cancelled/ostracized for expressing their perfectly reasonable opinions, they sometimes keep those opinions to themselves and wait to make their voice heard via the ballot box instead. Wilder's surpise win is one such example. Brexit was another.

 

Long live Democracy. 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

You clearly don't understand what Brexit was about. It wasn't about the past, it was about the future.

 

If Brexit was about the future why do Brexiters find it so difficult to explain what this bright new future looks like and, more importantly, how it will be achieved? 

 

I'll answer my own questions: It's because they have no idea what it is.  Even if they did, I suspect that they wouldn't have the faintest idea how it might be achieved.

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The EU has morphed from a simple trading bloc into a political project aimed at creating a United States of Europe. A federalist, anti-democratic project which the majority of UK citizens that cared enough to vote, could see and roundly rejected in one of the greatest examples of Democracy in recent history. We got out while the going was good. While we were still able to. 

 

It's pointless providing (yet again) a counter-argument to the usual EU federalist, anti-democratic claptrap as, rather like any discussion on sovereignty, any facts (supported by evidence) will not be acknowledged as such.

 

Suffice to say, the EU has changed and evolved over time. Why wouldn't it? It happens to all organisations. Has all change been for the best? Almost certainly not. Can the EU be improved? Almost certainly, yes. But what organisation/ system is perfect? The UK constitution or government(s)? I think not.

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

There has been no chaos. Project Fear has been proven to be a lie. In fact, the UK economy is doing well and out performing many of it's European counterparts, including France and Germany. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/29/uk-economy-growth-france-germany-sunak-inflation/#:~:text=The UK economy has performed,a boost to Rishi Sunak.

 

So can we assume that in your opinion, Brexit has been a success to date? If so, we clearly use differing criteria in measuring success.

 

Did you actually read the link which you posted? The most positive comment that I could find was: "Richard Carter, analyst at Quilter Cheviot, said bright spots in the data “give some hope that a recession can still be avoided by the UK”." Hardly a reason to put up the bunting.

 

That the UK has "outperformed"  France and Germany in terms of GDP growth - a dubious claim given that, amongst other things, the EU has not issued revised figures - proves nothing in itself. You would have to show either that the UK's relative "outperformance" was due to it having left the EU and/or that France and Germany's relative "underperformance" were due to them being part of the EU: It is almost impossible to test the latter premise, but the effect of Brexit on the UK economy has been modelled and reported upon by the likes of the OBR, FT and 'Britain in a Changing Europe'. The unanimous conclusion of these organisations was that leaving the EU had negatively impacted the UK.

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Wilders victory is just more evidence that voters are rejecting the EU. Rightly so. Expect more to come. 

 

Which is factually incorrect. I just listened to a podcast by Politico which stated that support for 'Nexit' among Dutch voters was currently 13%. 

[nauseus]

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

Given what you know, what you said might make sense to you, but unfortunately for you and many others , what you know is not the full picture. 

When trump was elected, I often posted that trump was a danger, but that he was not the real danger. 

The real danger is that the players saw how much more  they can get away with, and how much the electorate would buy.

and players will be players,

I said, "one way of another trump will go away, but trump wannabes will always be around. and now they have a new play, in their play book" 

And we see this play all around the world. 

   Most countries are depopulating, this is a fact, first world women are not having enough children. That is a fact.

The US has an advantage in this paradigm, they have an immigrant culture, and are a desirable immigrant   destination, so they are able to maintain population and grow. 

If they are to survive as viable economies, European countries need to learn from the above lesson. Either have more children or replace your population with immigrants.

It is as simple as that. 

But the immigration issue is a wedge issue that players will use, and "players will be players" they will play every card they have, and Ethnocentrism is a card the hold. 

The Brits shot themselves in the foot by it, the Netherlands will shoot their foots also , and I am afraid that unless the immigration issue is addressed in a sustainable fashion, and a way that it is palatable to all involved, more countries are not far behind. 

 

Trump in at line 3! Nothing like staying on topic! Brilliant!

[RayC]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Perhaps those of the opinion that the UK has no need of immigrants could explain why - having left the EU and now being fully in control of immigration - the UK government has simply decided to replace the work-shy, lazy EU nationals - who used to take all our jobs and scround off the British state (err ...🤔) - with lazy, scrounging Indians, Nigerians, Pakistanis and Ukrainians?

 

Just to be clear. I do not believe that immigrants to the UK of any nationality are any lazier or more work-shy than the indigenous UK population. I was clumsily trying to make the point that the UK is dependent on immigration to bolster its' workforce, and that leaving the EU has had no effect on this dependency. All that has happened is that we have replaced nationals from the EU states with nationals from further afield.

 

Immigrants have always been and unfortunately it appears, will continue to be a convenient peg on which to hang society's problems.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

Perhaps those of the opinion that the UK has no need of immigrants could explain why - having left the EU and now being fully in control of immigration - the UK government has simply decided to replace the work-shy, lazy EU nationals - who used to take all our jobs and scround off the British state (err ...🤔) - with lazy, scrounging Indians, Nigerians, Pakistanis and Ukrainians?

 

Bad policy I agree. But what's new there?