Geert Wilders' victory in Netherlands election spooks Europe

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

 

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.

 

A repeat of the repeats of your nonsense of the last 7 years. With more conservatives dominating the composition of the governments of several member states, the EU is now steadily losing sway over them, as well as any influence it may have had across the rest of the world. The EU is starting to backtrack on its "freedom" policies, as the consequences of same are now becoming clear.

 

A name change to "Extinction Union" now seems apt.

[nauseus]

1 hour 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?

 

Maybe because Dutch opposition to the EU is not confined to only one party? 

[RayC]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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

 

Why would they need to do that? Van Grieken's party wants an independent Flemish state which would not include Brussels.

 

However, your idea might have some merit. Since the pandemic there is an abundance of unused office space throughout Europe. In the interests of cost savings, maybe the unelected cabal of Brussels bureaucrats could share their accommodation with the unelected cabal of UK bureaucrats?

[candide]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

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. 

He won with 25% of votes/seats. It confirms the percentage of people who favoured Nexit in polls.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

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.? 

I call B.S.

You don't have to be a full blown Adolph to be legitimately pegged as extremist far right.

The Dutchman in question has been for CLOSING all mosques in his country.

He shelved positions like that to get elected but his shelved position tells you what he's all about and it's not pretty. 

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

This Dutch Poll shows support for Nexit is currently at 30% , support for Nexit has ranged from highest 39% lowest 25%

https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/peilingtrends/europese-unie/in-de-eu-blijven-of-eruit/

[RayC]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

A repeat of the repeats of your nonsense of the last 7 years. With more conservatives dominating the composition of the governments of several member states, the EU is now steadily losing sway over them, as well as any influence it may have had across the rest of the world. The EU is starting to backtrack on its "freedom" policies, as the consequences of same are now becoming clear.

 

A name change to "Extinction Union" now seems apt.

 

The only one of us spouting nonsense is you. 

 

You are completely unable to offer any evidence to refute the fact that the UK was in agreement with the rest of the EU 97% of the time when it was a member. Likewise, you offer no evidence to counter the findings of the OBR, FT and 'Britain in a Changing Europe' reports ,which show that the UK has suffered economically from leaving the EU: No attempt either is made to address my challenge about what this bright new, post-EU UK will look like or how it will be achieved. Instead and as usual, what you offer nothing more than 'I know what I know'. This seems to be common amongst Brexiters and, perhaps, explains why seven years on, the country is no nearer to finding any solutions to the problems caused by leaving.

 

As for the rise of the populist right. I admit defeat. I can't understand why the Dutch would vote for Wilders: It's not as though they don't know what he is like. Moreover, the Dutch electorate need only have looked at how right-wing populist governments throughout Europe have fractured their respective societies to realise that no good will come of it. Hopefully, the UK will buck the trend next year.

[bignok]

9 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.

These guys are never far right. Centre right. The media has moved left.

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

This Dutch Poll shows support for Nexit is currently at 30% , support for Nexit has ranged from highest 39% lowest 25%

https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/peilingtrends/europese-unie/in-de-eu-blijven-of-eruit/

 

Can only repeat what I said earlier. Latest episode of Politico's 'EU confidential' podcast states support for 'Nexit' is 13%. Maybe they got it wrong?🤷

https://www.politico.eu/eu-confidential-podcast/ (@+/-5'30")

 

[vinny41]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Can only repeat what I said earlier. Latest episode of Politico's 'EU confidential' podcast states support for 'Nexit' is 13%. Maybe they got it wrong?🤷

https://www.politico.eu/eu-confidential-podcast/ (@+/-5'30")

 

EenVandaag Opinion Panel

EenVandaag believes it is important to know what is going on in society. The EenVandaag Opinion Panel was created for this purpose, which now has more than 80,000 members. These members are asked every week to speak out on political and social issues. This makes the EenVandaag Opinion Panel a real indicator of society. All research results can also be found in the Polling app .  

https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/info/over-eenvandaag/

 

Its more likely that this Dutch website is factual correct than rather than someone speaking on a podcast with out any polls to backup what they are saying

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

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

The whole thing went over your head, didn't?

My reply is too

"Well I didn't see this one coming "

and  goes on to editorialise how the "indigenous" people of Europe are being sold out, to be colonised.

The topic is that another right winger elected "spooks Europe "

With elements of " linking Muslim immigration with terrorism "

Sound familiar ?

To me it sounds straight out of trump's playbook.

in fact according to this article "sometimes dubbed the Dutch Trump - partly for his dyed, bouffant-like hairdo, and partly for his famously firebrand rhetoric. "

And I went on to tell you that since europeans are reproducing well below replacement rate , Immigration is necessary to maintain a stable and perhaps growing population, .

e 

   

 

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

This Dutch Poll shows support for Nexit is currently at 30% , support for Nexit has ranged from highest 39% lowest 25%

https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/peilingtrends/europese-unie/in-de-eu-blijven-of-eruit/

 

Your link doesn't offer any figures and my Dutch isn't up to navigating the site.

 

As I said before, maybe the Politico journalist got it wrong? Maybe she said "13%" when she meant to say 30%?

 

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that The Netherlands is currently a long way from voting 'Yes' to leaving the EU.

[vinny41]

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Your link doesn't offer any figures and my Dutch isn't up to navigating the site.

 

As I said before, maybe the Politico journalist got it wrong? Maybe she said "13%" when she meant to say 30%?

 

In any event, it doesn't change the fact that The Netherlands is currently a long way from voting 'Yes' to leaving the EU.

The figures are based on polls taken by the  EenVandaag Opinion Panel was created for this purpose, which now has more than 80,000 members.

https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/info/over-eenvandaag/

[nauseus]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The only one of us spouting nonsense is you. 

 

You are completely unable to offer any evidence to refute the fact that the UK was in agreement with the rest of the EU 97% of the time when it was a member. Likewise, you offer no evidence to counter the findings of the OBR, FT and 'Britain in a Changing Europe' reports ,which show that the UK has suffered economically from leaving the EU: No attempt either is made to address my challenge about what this bright new, post-EU UK will look like or how it will be achieved. Instead and as usual, what you offer nothing more than 'I know what I know'. This seems to be common amongst Brexiters and, perhaps, explains why seven years on, the country is no nearer to finding any solutions to the problems caused by leaving.

 

As for the rise of the populist right. I admit defeat. I can't understand why the Dutch would vote for Wilders: It's not as though they don't know what he is like. Moreover, the Dutch electorate need only have looked at how right-wing populist governments throughout Europe have fractured their respective societies to realise that no good will come of it. Hopefully, the UK will buck the trend next year.

 

Running back to the economic arguments as usual. There was never any argument from me that economies would not suffer after Brexit, which was won due to other issues. The biggest problem was that the process of leaving the EU was left in the hands of the remnants of a pro remain government, which was weakly led, especially after the shock result of the referendum.

 

Populist parties are gaining support because the silent majority of Europeans have had enough of the excessive migration numbers and their cumulative adverse effects.

 

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

The whole thing went over your head, didn't?

My reply is too

"Well I didn't see this one coming "

and  goes on to editorialise how the "indigenous" people of Europe are being sold out, to be colonised.

The topic is that another right winger elected "spooks Europe "

With elements of " linking Muslim immigration with terrorism "

Sound familiar ?

To me it sounds straight out of trump's playbook.

in fact according to this article "sometimes dubbed the Dutch Trump - partly for his dyed, bouffant-like hairdo, and partly for his famously firebrand rhetoric. "

And I went on to tell you that since europeans are reproducing well below replacement rate , Immigration is necessary to maintain a stable and perhaps growing population, .

e 

   

 

 

You really thought your post could fly? The one I saw hit a brick wall.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

IMO, gained while living in the UK, is that the government ( both parties ) are unable or unwilling to make the unemployed  British go to work, and prefer to import those that are willing to get off their <deleted> and want to work.

While some even spend money for criminals to bring them to Britain's shores from far far away, apparently many in the north of England prefer to stay home on the dole.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

A repeat of the repeats of your nonsense of the last 7 years. With more conservatives dominating the composition of the governments of several member states, the EU is now steadily losing sway over them, as well as any influence it may have had across the rest of the world. The EU is starting to backtrack on its "freedom" policies, as the consequences of same are now becoming clear.

 

A name change to "Extinction Union" now seems apt.

Had they kept it an economic union, rather than a political union likely it would still be functioning as intended.

As one from the Antipodes one is somewhat satisfied at the disruption caused to Britain by it's exit from that <deleted> union, given the economic disaster visited on one's country when Britain stabbed us in the back to join the EEC. Some wounds never heal.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

And I went on to tell you that since europeans are reproducing well below replacement rate , Immigration is necessary to maintain a stable and perhaps growing population, .

and I've been saying for some time now that a decreasing population is a good thing, given the destruction visited on the planet by western lifestyles using up all the resources, while poor countries rot.

People are no longer needed en mass, given many functions can be given to AI robotics, and the millions of unemployed can be trained to work as carers for the elderly ( unless androids take over that as well ).

 

The entire "need more people" nonsense is IMO a scam by the 1% that need a large population to exploit.

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO, gained while living in the UK, is that the government ( both parties ) are unable or unwilling to make the unemployed  British go to work, and prefer to import those that are willing to get off their <deleted> and want to work.

While some even spend money for criminals to bring them to Britain's shores from far far away, apparently many in the north of England prefer to stay home on the dole.

 

Agree. The UK welfare system is too easy to hide in and is abused by many.

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had they kept it an economic union, rather than a political union likely it would still be functioning as intended.

As one from the Antipodes one is somewhat satisfied at the disruption caused to Britain by it's exit from that <deleted> union, given the economic disaster visited on one's country when Britain stabbed us in the back to join the EEC. Some wounds never heal.

Yes and yes. Sorry about that.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Agree. The UK welfare system is too easy to hide in and is abused by many.

Not just the UK welfare system. Seems to be a persistent disease of the socialist ( small s ) western countries.

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and I've been saying for some time now that a decreasing population is a good thing, given the destruction visited on the planet by western lifestyles using up all the resources, while poor countries rot.

If maintaining the current state of the planet was the criteria then you would be correct, But it is not!

The survival of the Human race is, Because, as far as we know, humans are the only way the the Universe has by which to examine itself. 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The entire "need more people" nonsense is IMO a scam by the 1% that need a large population to exploit.

Under our current system we weed to maintain the current population or increased to sustain the economic system we live under. Perhaps with a different economic system we will not, but we don't have one , we have the one we have now, and there are no plans to change to a different one. In fact people like you, resist changing to a different socialists system. 

Sp you need people!! I assume you are retired, or some day will be. Who would support you pension system? 

There were 7 working people per retiree, By 2047, there will be just two workers, I want to see what you will say when your pension system goes bust. 

[JonnyF]

Ireland might be next given the riots (that the media are doing their best to ignore) in Dublin following the stabbing of children by a man who the media won't release the identity of for obvious reasons. 

 

If the European governments don't start protecting the indigenous people of Europe from colonization they might start to do it themselves.

 

 

[RayC]

14 hours ago, vinny41 said:

The figures are based on polls taken by the  EenVandaag Opinion Panel was created for this purpose, which now has more than 80,000 members.

https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/info/over-eenvandaag/

 

That's a very large sample. I have no reason to doubt the validity and verificatory of the site.

 

However, I'm afraid that my Dutch hasn't improved enough in the past 14 hours for me to derive any benefit from links🤷😁

[Georgealbert]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Ireland might be next given the riots (that the media are doing their best to ignore) in Dublin following the stabbing of children by a man who the media won't release the identity of for obvious reasons. 

 

If the European governments don't start protecting the indigenous people of Europe from colonization they might start to do it themselves.

 

 

Try some facts. I know truth and reality are difficult for you.

 

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/eu-and-irelands-economic-growth-and-recovery

 

Facts are better than your racist wet dreams.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Running back to the economic arguments as usual. There was never any argument from me that economies would not suffer after Brexit, which was won due to other issues. The biggest problem was that the process of leaving the EU was left in the hands of the remnants of a pro remain government, which was weakly led, especially after the shock result of the referendum.

 

Populist parties are gaining support because the silent majority of Europeans have had enough of the excessive migration numbers and their cumulative adverse effects.

 

 

I find it strange how easily you - and most Brexiters - dismiss the negative economic consequences of Brexit and the fact that many in the UK are made poorer as a result of it.

 

You are saying (I assume) that Brexit was won because of the sovereignty issue. To repeat, I think that it is a red herring and those who believed the 'taking back control' mantra were sold a pup. But playing devil's advocate and accepting that there is some substance to that argument (which, to be clear,  I don't), are you saying that being made progressively poorer is worth it simply because you are ruled from Westminster rather than Brussels?

 

I see that you've thrown in the 'someone else's fault/ Brexit wasn't done right' excuse for good measure without, yet again, adding any detail about how Brexit could have been 'done right'.

 

Wrt migration, you don't spell out what are these "cumulative adverse effects", whether all migrants bring this baggage with them and what should be done about it. Should we therefore send all non-native borne individuals in the UK 'back home'? No doubt there are those posting on this forum who would answer 'Yes' without giving a moment's thought about the effect that losing +/-5 million workers would have on the UK economy, let alone the irony of them living in a country as an immigrant themselves!

 

(I'll pay you a back-handed compliment by stating that I don't think you fall into the category I outline above).

 

Re the 5 million figure: In 2021 there were an estimated 14 million people borne outside the UK living there. Working population is 37% of the total. Quick back of a fag package estimate of the number of non-British borne individuals eligible to work is thus +/-5m).

[RayC]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO, gained while living in the UK, is that the government ( both parties ) are unable or unwilling to make the unemployed  British go to work, and prefer to import those that are willing to get off their <deleted> and want to work.

While some even spend money for criminals to bring them to Britain's shores from far far away, apparently many in the north of England prefer to stay home on the dole.

 

Congratulations. You reached a new low.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Agree. The UK welfare system is too easy to hide in and is abused by many.

 

Get rid of the welfare state: Can't hide behind it if it's not there.

 

Pensioners have had their day. The sick are nothing but a burden and a waste of resources. Neither group is of any use to anyone. Let nature take its' course. Won't need to train as many medical professionals. They can be re-employed burning the corpses immediately to avoid disease spreading to the deserving.

 

Why complicate matters, eh? Simples.

 

Unfortunately, I imagine that there are those who think that this is a sound proposal.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I find it strange how easily you - and most Brexiters - dismiss the negative economic consequences of Brexit and the fact that many in the UK are made poorer as a result of it.

 

You are saying (I assume) that Brexit was won because of the sovereignty issue. To repeat, I think that it is a red herring and those who believed the 'taking back control' mantra were sold a pup. But playing devil's advocate and accepting that there is some substance to that argument (which, to be clear,  I don't), are you saying that being made progressively poorer is worth it simply because you are ruled from Westminster rather than Brussels?

 

I see that you've thrown in the 'someone else's fault/ Brexit wasn't done right' excuse for good measure without, yet again, adding any detail about how Brexit could have been 'done right'.

 

Wrt migration, you don't spell out what are these "cumulative adverse effects", whether all migrants bring this baggage with them and what should be done about it. Should we therefore send all non-native borne individuals in the UK 'back home'? No doubt there are those posting on this forum who would answer 'Yes' without giving a moment's thought about the effect that losing +/-5 million workers would have on the UK economy, let alone the irony of them living in a country as an immigrant themselves!

 

(I'll pay you a back-handed compliment by stating that I don't think you fall into the category I outline above).

 

Re the 5 million figure: In 2021 there were an estimated 14 million people borne outside the UK living there. Working population is 37% of the total. Quick back of a fag package estimate of the number of non-British borne individuals eligible to work is thus +/-5m).

 

And I find it strange that, after my post, you still think that I have dismissed the negative economic consequences of Brexit. You are correct in that I think that Brexit was won because of the sovereignty issue but obviously red herrings did not ping back on my sonar. No pups were bought or sold as far as I am concerned. Being (temporarily) poorer was seen by me as part of the expected cost of leaving the EU. 

 

Brexit might have been 'done right' if the process had been managed by a strong leader instead of one who basically let the EU author that hopeless withdrawal agreement. We'll never know now.

 

These "cumulative adverse effects" are mainly due to the rapid rise in the UK population and the associated burden on government services, especially w.r.t. health, housing, schooling and social welfare. More acute adverse effects concern the criminality (especially violent) which is an unfortunate and disturbing characteristic of certain immigrant groups. Now political and civil unrest is increasing in the UK and Europe and years of high immigration rates are the man reason for that. Migrant assimilation has not happened.

 

You guys always worry about the growth of the economy rather than the preservation of the nation. Infinite growth in any economy is both impossible and unsustainable, in any case. 

 

 

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Get rid of the welfare state: Can't hide behind it if it's not there.

 

Pensioners have had their day. The sick are nothing but a burden and a waste of resources. Neither group is of any use to anyone. Let nature take its' course. Won't need to train as many medical professionals. They can be re-employed burning the corpses immediately to avoid disease spreading to the deserving.

 

Why complicate matters, eh? Simples.

 

Unfortunately, I imagine that there are those who think that this is a sound proposal.

 

That's quite radical. I'm shocked that you could say this!