Elections_Netherlands_debate1First Brexit, then Trump… and now Wilders? Could the Netherlands be poised to deliver the next populist shock to the mainstream political system? And could a win by a nationalist, populist party in the Netherlands herald an even bigger upset in the upcoming French Presidential elections later this year?

On 15 March 2017, Dutch voters go to ballot box for an election that could see the far-right blond firebrand Geert Wilders upset his country’s established political order. Polling suggests that public support for mainstream parties is slumping; it’s predicted that eight parties will gain 10 or more seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, meaning less seats for the big traditional parties.

So, could Wilders really win? It depends what you mean by “win”. He’s been topping the opinion polls with roughly 30% of the vote, and it’s entirely possible that his Party For Freedom (PVV) will hold the most seats in parliament after the election. However, analysts believe he will struggle to actually enter government because so many other parties have ruled out joining him in coalition.

On the other hand, many analysts also said Brexit would never happen, and that Trump would never make it to the White House. We had a comment from Peter, wondering whether the European political establishment has completely understood the “wake-up calls” of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Have Dutch political parties “woken up” yet?

To get a reaction, we spoke to Professor Sarah de Lange from the University of Amsterdam’s Department of Political Science. What would she say?

langeDespite the developments in the Netherlands itself (e.g. the Dutch No in the referendum on the Ukraine Association Treaty and the success of Wilders), many politicians were surprised by the Brexit vote and the election of Trump. Like in the other EU countries, the establishment has been critical of Brexit and it has firmly rejected the possibility of a Nexit. Initial responses to the success of Trump varied, with some parties opposing his ideas in strong terms and other declaring that he should be evaluated on his actions once in office. However, since the Muslim ban all established parties and the government have clearly spoken out against Trump’s policies. In the Netherlands, only radical right-wing populist parties such as Wilders’ PVV are at the moment in favour of Trump.

For another perspective, we put the same question to Stijn van Kessel, a lecturer in Politics at Loughborough University in the UK and an expert on populism in the Netherlands. What would he say to Peter?

BEJV145gDutch mainstream parties have, to varying degrees, shown concern regarding Brexit as well as the election of Trump. Only Geert Wilders of the populist radical right Freedom Party (PVV) welcomed both events, expressing his hope that the Dutch electorate would similarly vote to ‘take back their country’ in the upcoming national election in March. Regarding the election of Trump, Prime Minister Rutte of the Liberal Party (VVD) remained neutral and simply congratulated Trump, although he did later criticise Trump’s executive order to (temporarily) halt refugees from Islamic countries, as did various other party leaders. Most mainstream politicians still recognised the importance of maintaining good relationships with the US, and many claimed to see Brexit as a signal that the EU needed to be reformed.

We also had a comment from Imanuel, who believes that the Dutch constitution prohibits an EU referendum. So, does that mean “Nexit” can never happen? We asked Dr. Stijn van Kessel to respond (he asked us to mention that he received input on his response from his colleague, Dr. Saskia Hollander).

BEJV145gThe Dutch constitution prohibits binding referendums. It is possible, however, for parliament to organise an advisory referendum, similar to the one on the EU-Ukraine association treaty in April 2016 or the one on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2005. The Brexit referendum in the UK was advisory as well, i.e. government and parliament did not strictly have to act on the referendum result. Ignoring referendum results can however be electorally costly, as politicians risk being accused of ignoring the ‘will of the people’. A similar hypothetical referendum outcome in the Netherland could thus lead to a ‘Nexit’. But this scenario is not very likely. Besides the PVV, there is no support for a Nexit among Dutch parties represented in parliament. The British electorate is also considerably more hostile towards the EU than the Dutch electorate, which still favours European Union membership by a considerable majority.

Finally, we took Imanuel’s comment to Dr. Gijs Schumacher, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. What did he have to say?

Gijs-pasfoto_retouchedWell, of course, we could change the constitution. The constitution is not set in stone. Also, there are referendums in the Netherlands, but they are consultative. The government is in fact obliged to offer such a referendum if enough signatures are collected, as they did with the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement referendum.

However, I find it highly unlikely that there will be a Dutch referendum on EU membership. In Britain, there’s always been a strong anti-European sentiment, particularly at the elite level. Britain has always been the most eurosceptic of the EU Member States… In the Netherlands, there is growing anti-EU sentiment, but we’re coming from a level where everybody was in favour of the EU. What is becoming part of the debate is whether EU integration should go further or stop. But I think that’s a different discussion from the British debate (“Should we be in the EU or not?”). For a small country like the Netherlands, it would be suicide to leave. I think there’s still a very large consensus on that in the Netherlands…

Will the Netherlands follow the UK and the US down the populist path? Could Geert Wilders confound the commentators and actually get into power? Or will he be blocked from government because no other party will go into coalition with the PVV? Could “Nexit” follow “Brexit”? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Roel Wijnants


124 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. Fernando Nabais

    What is actually the meaning of “populist”? Does it refer to a politician that listens to the people he represents?

    • Josh Cameron

      it’s appealing to ”the people”, but there is always a problem: 1. a large majority of ordinary people are not fit to give informed opinion on most matters concerning the government and 2. the most simple way to appeal to the common people is to play up their fears and manipulate them through that (shut ourselves in, terrorists, walls, yada yada yada … which, as history shows us, NEVER results in anything good) … ofc there are many more problems …

    • Vitaliy Markov

      Populism pits the “people” against the “elite”. The problem is in the definition of those two words. Anybody can be accused of being elitist and anti-people if they don’t agree with the populist politician’s ideas. That’s what causes populism to be dangerous, it can easily lead to authoritarianism and more corruption.

    • Karolina

      iow, no long-term plan or common sense.

    • Bobi Dochev

      Josh Cameron Then there is the question: Since when the democracy care about the ability of the people to take informed decision about the governments?!
      About two years ago same people voted for Juncker and the “traditional” parties all over EU – then they were able to take decision – now when they sow the EU “elite” doesn’t protect their interest same people are “not fit to give opinion”?! This is such a hypocrisy!
      And secondly define “ordinary people” because recent survey across EU shows that there are already nearly 60% of the citizens against current EU policy (especially policies concerning the migration) – even if I’m “ordinarily” dumb, please let me think there are some pretty damn clever guys among this nearly 300 millions European citizen which are against!!!
      And if you allow… there are bunch of problems with the “traditional” parties as well, we see it for the last 2-3 decades. That’s why the people look for alternatives – maybe not the best alternatives but at least some.

    • Paul X

      “a large majority of ordinary people are not fit to give informed opinion”
      Actually ordinary people are perfectly able to give a informed opinion as long as they are given all the information to do so. Politicians are no more intelligent that “ordinary people” they are just better placed to get all the facts…….and therein lies the biggest problem with the EU and the main reason for Brexit…. the EU never bothers to tell the “ordinary people” all the facts and figures to justify its activities, agenda, budget, etc etc and this attitude that “ordinary people” do not need to know what they get up to is pure and simply, Elitism

    • Fernando Nabais

      Josh Cameron if you think that the majority of ordinary people is not fit to give opinion, then you cannot support Democracy. You claim common people is manipulated, but how, if the elites control all the media? It is the common people who experiences the wonders of the multiculturalism, that is why they vote like they vote. The riches and celebrities, live in their mansions surrounded by servants and for them multiculturalism only means cheap labor.

  2. Bobi Dochev

    Damn! I’ll ask again. What is the definition for populist and who the hell decide which one is populist and which one isn’t!!!
    The liberals and social-democrats promised so many things which they never realized in practices – does this mean they are populist?!!!
    You really piss me off with that shit!!!

    • Povil Ka

      you are the definition.

    • Marco La Rosa

      Hi Bobi,
      Populism is rather overused, but in general, we can say that there are different understanding of what “Populism” means. We can argue that “populism” as it is usually found in media, refers to a style of political communication which is “performed, embodied, and enacted across different political and cultural contexts” (I borrow this from Benjamin Moffitt, from Stockholm University). There are some elements that populism is associated with:
      – an exaggerated divide between “the people” and “the elite”, with the elite being the enemy
      – a strong leader that embodies the will of “the people”
      You have populists associated with different political areas, including liberals, in general, the problem with populism is that it oversimplify problems presenting simple solutions that, in reality, are not feasible. Also, populism tends to divide rather than unify people creating further tension in society.
      Populism as such is historically associated with economic crises or a growing divide between representatives and represented, in a way, it can be healthy for democracy by highlighted the divide and making politicians pay more attention to their voters.
      The problem is that nowadays populists and mainstream parties are changing the way they communicate. You can lie, you can provide “alternative-facts” to appease “the people”, but it is fake listening. The problem of today’s populism is the lack of fact-checking and informed decision made by voters when electing their representative. Without getting too much into the Brexit vote, it is alarming to see how politicians from both side promised or argued on issues that were either false or overestimated. Populists or better, populist political style, tend to illude voters in order to win.

    • Marco La Rosa

      Hi Bobi,
      Populism is rather overused, but in general, we can say that there are different understanding of what “Populism” means. We can argue that “populism” as it is usually found in media, refers to a style of political communication which is “performed, embodied, and enacted across different political and cultural contexts” (I borrow this from Benjamin Moffitt, from Stockholm University). There are some elements that populism is associated with:
      – an exaggerated divide between “the people” and “the elite”, with the elite being the enemy
      – a strong leader that embodies the will of “the people”
      You have populists associated with different political areas, including liberals, in general, the problem with populism is that it oversimplify problems presenting simple solutions that, in reality, are not feasible. Also, populism tends to divide rather than unify people creating further tension in society.
      Populism as such is historically associated with economic crises or a growing divide between representatives and represented, in a way, it can be healthy for democracy by highlighted the divide and making politicians pay more attention to their voters.
      The problem is that nowadays populists and mainstream parties are changing the way they communicate. You can lie, you can provide “alternative-facts” to appease “the people”, but it is fake listening. The problem of today’s populism is the lack of fact-checking and informed decision made by voters when electing their representative. Without getting too much into the Brexit vote, it is alarming to see how politicians from both side promised or argued on issues that were either false or overestimated. Populists or better, populist political style, tend to illude voters in order to win.

    • Bobi Dochev

      Marco La Rosa But they are all populist Marco, does anybody tried the simple solutions before announced they wont work? The “traditional” parties are like engineers – if there is a crooked picture on the wall they will spend years in inventing automatic system built in the frame to keep it strait… and when it is done they will realize that it is crooked just because the cat pushed in while chasing sunny bunny on the wall – damn just push it back – that’s enough! Simple and working!
      Yes some of the ides of the parties associated as populist are too radical, but people are ready to accept this ideas just because the traditional parties policies are already proved as highly unefficient! And then try to listen your local populist – in common they are much, much better prepared with factology and calculations then the traditional parties which lay down on its old glory.
      I don’t want to vote for the populist, but if nobody else offer me changes, I’ll take the risk. At the worst case they will ruin the Union, (which after yesterday vote for CETA I personally see as best alternative) after that there will be people that going to build the Union again, but real one, working one, not on two speeds, not in favour of few countries, not in favour of the big companies – a Union for the people and the small and medium business – as it should be.
      In my eyes the biggest populist are the parties that currently rule the EU because they are the one to fix it, but for the last few years we only listen excuses. And calling those with different ideas populist when you are brainless liar is quite brazen and really piss me off.

    • CDelev

      Look, there are many definitions, the works of academics and laymen, that try to explain what this sociological and political phenomenon is. According to one recent article in Forbes, the kernel of populism is ‘a delineation between “normal folk” and “the elite.”‘ (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/iese/2017/01/24/why-populism-is-rising-and-how-to-combat-it/#7a1cffe81d44)
      Now, I know that you might see the drain of popular discourse and debate to be clogged by issues relating to the dominant European political parties clinging to the status quo while corrupt politicians chip the finances given to them to allocate to medium and small businesses. I understand your piercing cry at the current miasma, but what Wilders, Le Pen and company aren’t the cure to our ailment. It is active citizenship, it is a pro-EU stance that is reformist at its core. If you listen to what Le Pen and Wilders have stated, their claims are based on the return to the Westphalian ideal of nation states living in complete unaccountability to each other, par in parem non habet imperium.
      The EU has much more to offer. Yes, even Junker accepted this in one of his recent statements. The EU has become a hoary bird singing its swan song. However, the protections it offers us, as found in its primary and secondary legislation cannot now be overruled. Think of the cases of Van Gend en Loos, from which the principle of autonomy came about, and Costa v ENEL that now allows for EU law to be supreme over national law and, thus, to remove all obstacles to the single market. This is a wonderful thing that will take decades to rebuild. It is not like the 2006 UN reintroduction of a Human Rights Commission. This is called picking the fork of separatism at the critical junction. There is no coming back together after this.
      By the bye, I do not agree with many of the member states’ decisions regarding the migrant crisis as well. However, with the lack of this forum, we will see the return of many more dilemmas and backdoors conversations.

    • Evans Fu

      And the truth is?

  3. Ivan Burrows

    .

    Now people are seeing the antidemocratic EU for what it is the Dutch will not be the only ones.

    Vive la liberté !

  4. Ivan Burrows

    .

    Now people are seeing the antidemocratic EU for what it is the Dutch will not be the only ones.

    Vive la liberté !

  5. Daniel Parvanov

    Populism = what people want… Today political elites are so far from what people want that they use it as bad one…

  6. Tony Muñiz

    Populism? Populism is what the left does. Pandering to everyone and everything. Stating you want to stop muslim migrants is anything but popular. We can only hope he wins, and by lanslide.

  7. klassen

    Its not populism …but lets hope so . FREEDOM
    The dutch have had enough of the globalists and they are tired of being used as a financial tool for the eu elite .
    The netherlands is run by ALDE group which consists of the VVD/D66/GL/SP/CDA, we have no opposition other than wilders.
    Brussels call the shots in den haag, Rutte is nothing more than a brussels spokesman and a liar.!!
    We also have jesse klaver whos real name is Yasser Faras, a morrocan , didnt know you could run for office with a fake name, go figure?
    If Wilders wins they will blame the russians, or the weather , or brexit or trump, or populism .But never themselves !!

    • James McManama

      Come on mate, that’s super racist. Jesse Klaver’s real name is Jesse Klaver. He’s Dutch. Did you know that Geert Wilders’ mother was born in Indonesia, and his grandmother was of mixed Dutch-Indonesian descent? That doesn’t make Geert Wilders Indonesian.

  8. Nando Aidos

    Can we stop with these buzzwords like “populism” and “liberalism” and other “isms” that have been so overused that they have become devoid of any substantive meaning?
    How about calling “a spade a spade”?
    How about a party that “panders to the extremist divisive ideas”?
    A party that “cares and acts in favor of the people”?
    Then perhaps the answers will be more substantive too!

  9. Marco Rafael

    They can do whatever they want with their vote. But if Europe falls they should not forget they are part of it.

  10. Evans Fu

    No, not at all. Quick google search will answer that for you.

    A good example of a populist would be Hitler, he claimed to the masses (excluding jews, blacks, lgbt, disabled people and left-leaning) that he would lift them up above other demographics, that media was “lugenpress”, the government were tyrants and the educated were considered almost traitors.

    The play by play is almost identical to all far-right parties, not hard to catch it.

  11. Evans Fu

    The definition of the word decides it.

    A good example of a populist would be Hitler, he claimed to the masses (excluding jews, blacks, lgbt, disabled people and left-leaning) that he would lift them up above other demographics, that media was “lugenpress”, the government were tyrants and the educated were considered almost traitors.

  12. Evans Fu

    The radical right-wing is mostly raliing against Islam. So let’s see what they’re really about:

    Say they want to protect people from Islam, mention Sharia law a lot as a main talking point, but want to implement Christian Sharia in Europe and the USA.

    Ridiculous

    The “people” that would suffer under Sharia will suffer under Christian’s Sharia, at least they should own up to their true objective.

    • Duncan

      Christian Sharia? You’ll need to elaborate here as I’m completely unaware of such a thing. Unless you refer to the ten commandments? Which, first of all are not exclusively Christian since they also apply to the Jewish faith, and also are already all law throughout Europe. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal and so on.

    • Vitaliy Markov

      That’s my main issue with supporting anybody on the right wing. They are against Islamic conservatism but want to impose Christian conservatism into society.

    • Karolina

      Christianity was never meant to be a political system, so they are just using the term. That’s populism as well,

    • Paul X

      Please feel free to back up your claims with some examples of exactly how people will suffer under “Christian Sharia”

    • Karolina

      Paul X, just read the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne to get an idea of life in Puritan America. What about the Salem Witch Trials? Have you heard of those?

    • Paul X

      Karolina, alas I have not read that book and to be honest after a quick google I’m sorry to say it doesn’t really appeal to me. As much as I know you like your history both the book and the Salem witch trials are 17th century events and considering how much the civilised world has moved on in the past 400 years, I very much doubt people are going to start cutting the hands of thieves, killing girls for stepping outside their front door (without a male family member), or pushing homosexuals off tall buildings, all in the name of Christianity

    • Karolina

      If you are not prepared to take the answers, you should not ask the questions.

    • Paul X

      I’m still awaiting a (relevant) answer. You quoting what people did 400 years ago in the name of Christianity does not answer what the present day threat from “Christian Sharia” is

    • Karolina

      LOL, Paul, depending on how bad it gets, the same. I thought that it was obvious. Have you never heard that we have to study the past in order to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Or are you against this view?

    • Paul X

      I totally agree Karolina, and we have learned lessons from the past, in the UK we have not burned a witch for over 300 years. So I’m still looking for an answer why we should suddenly start doing it again?

    • Karolina

      That was the point of the exchange, that nobody wants to do it again.

    • Paul X

      Karolina, once again your female “logic” defeats me…..

      At the very start of this “exchange” Evans Fu claims people will suffer under “Christian Sharia”

      I simply asked for any proof he had to suggest such a thing exists

      That question remains unanswered yet (following your usual history lesson) you think the discussion has now reached a conclusion by you giving the (to be honest, completely obvious) statement that nobody wants to go back to what Christians were doing 300 years ago?

      Whats life like on planet fluffy bunny?

    • EU Reform- Proactive

      Evans Flu’s comment refers:

      Doesn’t he WRONGLY equate the “radical right- wing” with (Christian) religion? These unloved group(s) are defined by a wide spectrum- like: “reactionary ideologies to democracy”- “neo-fascist, “neo-racists”, neo-Nazis all being right of the EPP in the EP. But least defined by any religion. Where does religion figure in European politics nowadays- except at the Vatican’s “Holy See” or as a compass for personal morals?

      None of these parties pledge (Christian) religion as a foundation of their political agenda. Secularism is accepted by all and compliant with the UNHCR or ECHR.

      The only ones who do not accept European secularism are all those who are signatories to the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. That should be an issue!

      It is Evans statement which is ridiculous!

    • Karolina

      Hi Paul, here is your question again since you seem to have forgotten it:

      “Please feel free to back up your claims with some examples of exactly how people will suffer under “Christian Sharia””

      I am by now used to people on this website employing intimidation tactics when they have lost the debate, so I just ignore it. Spare yourself the effort.

    • Paul X

      Lol, Karolina, thank you but I know exactly what my question was and as yet there has still been no sensible answer….. from yourself or anyone else

      The burning of witches 400 years ago does not count as we both agree we will not be returning to those days (having learned our lessons from the past)

    • Karolina

      Paul, this page cannot do anything for your communication problems. You need to go back to school.

    • Karolina

      If you are going to be in denial of what you say and in denial of understanding what others have posted in an effort to hide the fact that you have lost the debate, people are going to come to the conclusion that you are incapable of a debate and, therefore, it is not worth engaging into one with you.

    • Paul X

      Karolina you have now completely lost me, denial? communication problems? …err..where?…..if you feel you have in any way added any relevant replies to my original question ( the very same one you quoted back to me) the I must conclude it is you who has communication problems

      I’m going to hazard a guess at where your lack of comprehension lies….please pay attention…..

      In my question there are two crucial words you seem to have overlooked, they are “will suffer”…this is in the future tense, and in the context of the discussion I was looking for some examples of how people were going to suffer (in the future) under a claimed “Christian Sharia”

      Now if I had used the words “have suffered” then indeed your response regarding what happened 400 years ago would have been a relevant response

      I hope this has cleared up any “communication problem”

      Have a nice day

    • Karolina

      Yada, yada, yada. I just don;t want it to be obvious that I have lost the debate because I had no arguments to support my case.

    • Paul X

      ……and when it has been clearly demonstrated that you haven’t had any relevant input into the debate…put your fingers in your ears and go ” yada, yada, yada”

    • Paul X

      For the benefit of Karolina

      My Question to Evans Fu:
      “Please feel free to back up your claims with some examples of exactly how people will suffer under “Christian Sharia”

      Karolina’s response
      “Paul X, just read the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne to get an idea of life in Puritan America. What about the Salem Witch Trials? Have you heard of those?”

      Karolina, your response was totally irrelevant to my first post yet you have felt the need to continually argue over the past few days for no other reason but for the sake of arguing, ffs, give up, get over it, find someone else to bore with your inane ramblings

    • Evans Fu

      First, taking in refugees is international law and you should be happy that politicians are willing to bend to the law even when it’s against their own self-interest

      Second, the person that started all this, Merkel, is from a right-wing Christian party.

    • Marko Martinović

      Check Shengen. What does Christianity have to do with this argument?

    • Josh Cameron

      Marko Martinović it has nthing to do with the argument, he simply said that Merkel is RIGHT leaning and from a christian party, and today the right has gone to such extremes that even she is close to being called ”far leftist”, it shows you how extreme the right wing went in some cases

    • Josh Cameron

      Marko Martinović also please show me how they endangered the people :D

    • Marko Martinović

      Lax vetting, cowering up crime. Allowing unchecked floodding of population. Hundreads are dead, many more assaulted and injured. This could have been handeled much better. Now people are afraid in their own countries, and rightly so

  13. Imanuel d'Anjou

    you know illegalized nazi parties distance themselves from wilders, right? because he’s TOO EXTREME?

  14. Alfredo Coelho

    Populism??? That’s exactly what the left is whit their politic correcteness and we are sick and tired of your bullshit.

  15. Duncan

    I don’t really want to comment on the likelyhood of this happening. The Dutch should be free to elect who they see fit. What I would instead (and not for the first time) ask why the mainstream EU political situation is so far removed from what the average citizens would ask of their leaders that it is considered radical to be a populist politician, and i would ask what the EU in broader terms and it’s member nations intend to do to change their way of thinking and doing things so that it is more inclusive of these, the people they are supposed to be representing? It is too late to prevent Brexit, at one time of day, Brexit could have been averted. But now the other 27 members of the EU need to be asking what needs to change to stop others from deciding their interests are served better in an unknown future outside the EU. Then they need to implement those changes, and quickly before the EU concept is completely defunct of hope. If they keep going around with their fingers in their ears screaming “la la la la la I’m not listening la la la!” Then the EU has no future. Evolve or go extinct EU, it’s your choice to make.

    • Wouter Russchen

      why? we get rich from trade and EU immigrants. why would we want to stop that?

    • Никола Бошковић

      So that all European countries could make their own trade deals with whichever countries they wish.

      This “immigration” in nothing but a “reverse colonization” of European countries by Arabs, Sub-Saharans, and Muslims, thus destroying the fragile European ethnic equilibrium, historically-forged ethnic and cultural diversity and transforming it into an amorphic mass of people without any sense of identity, thus effectively destroying entire cultures and nations. Destroying fragile native European ethnic groups and entire civilizations. And these are just the cultural implications of the so-called “immigration”. Economic, implications are just as bad. It is basically Imperialism, just this time, instead on the skin of Africa and Asia, this time on the skin of Europe. And the EU is it’s harbinger.

  16. Josh Cameron

    Marko Martinović it has nthing to do with the argument, he simply said that Merkel is RIGHT leaning and from a christian party, and today the right has gone to such extremes that even she is close to being called ”far leftist”, it shows you how extreme the right wing went in some cases

  17. Jurre

    To put it rather frankly;

    Luckily we’re smart enough to have multi-polar politics. Even when we have both a Trump and a Hillary we have enough viable alternatives for sensible people. Thus we never have to chose “the lesser of two evils” in fact, we can choose from around 30 evils or even more. As long as the number of loonies (put quite bluntly) in our country doesn’t reach the 51%, we’re quite safe from dictatorial figures claiming power. And since a gross majority of our country expressly wants a government without the PVV, it would be functional, ideological AND electoral suicide for any other party to cooperate with them.

  18. Vicente Silva Tavares

    Why people go to the fringes? Because elites are in the pockets of the financial power and Bilderberg Club and do not care about the People.

  19. Enric Mestres Girbal

    Let’s hope so…..EU politiciens should understand that peaple are fed up with the way they use Europe for their own benefit….corruption and capitalism.

  20. Mario Todorov

    Yes, yes, yes, soon in EU will be members only eurobureucrats in Brussel. They like EU much, because they love only MONEY and don’t like own people. Goodbye!

  21. Alexandre Rodrigues

    Populism: people being manipulated by obscure media moguls, creepy politicians and other unelectable interests who instill fear and divisiveness so that the people’s “will” be respected in elections. That’s what populism is.

    • Paul X

      Elitism: being controlled by an establishment of idealogical career politicians and being unable to speak out against their liberal left policies for fear of being labelled populist

  22. Xander Stroo

    No, because in the Netherlands no party can rule alone, and other parties have sworn not to collaborate with Wilders. Now let’s hope they keep their promise…

  23. Vitaliy Markov

    Name an example of migrants destroying a native European culture. Which exact cultural practices have been banned by Muslim migrants in Europe?

  24. Karolina

    i don;t think it will get half as bad, simply because the educational level in the Netherlands is higher. The populist leaders cannot appeal to that many there. Plus the country suffered from the Nazis.

    The US as a country was founded on populist ideas: new Jerusalem, holier than thou, us vs them etc, so it is not surprising that those ideas still appeal to the electorate. It is a relatively young country and Trump didn;t even get the most votes.

  25. Dytte Varga

    Its ineVitable!! Sure they will… its s long PROCEDURE but gonna happen 😎 doeiiii

  26. Dytte Varga

    Its ineVitable!! Sure they will… its s long PROCEDURE but gonna happen doeiiii

  27. Max Berre

    That depends how much cash and material support the Russians pour into the DUTCH situation. But what will people say when they find russian rubles in Wilder’s bank account?

    Today, Trump’s national security advisor resigned for having negotiated with the russians. Le Pen OPENLY takes money from the Russians. People get away with that kind of thing in France.

    But what will people say when they find russian rubles in Wilder’s bank account?

    • catherine benning

      This is absolute rubbish. The Russians have nothing to do with the popularity of alternate ideologies in the West. That sounds like Orwell with his criminal Goldstein.

      Why will you never learn that the population are simply fed up with the stultifying drivel Globalists want to stuff down the throats of the electorate, whilst they push them further into poverty to fill their own packets to the hilt.

      The reason the so called Left, which they are not either left or right, are simply Globalists, trying to park the bus in Russia. And this is because Russia refuses to go along with the absolute mad agenda they have clung to, like shite to a blanket, since Reagan.

      The so called ‘populist’ has nothing to do with ‘populism’ in a derogatory sense. It is simply the will of the people to be rid of political correct brainwashing turning us all into a life of maniacal behaviour. The West has become a madhouse and no one wants it. Except a few rampant brainwashed idiots who never appear to work of have any kind of project in their lives. They find the time to endlessly demonstrate. I wonder who is paying them for that and keeping them going?

      And, yes, the population will vote to be free of a burden they have been endlessly subjected to. They would be crazy not to.

  28. Viorika Motoi

    Populism,the political eliters keep his oun place and intrest they are so far from hu the people whant ,need to consult the people whith oll the problems and oll the contry particulary.

  29. EU Reform- Proactive

    “Populist path”? Objections please!

    Invite more gossip, slander & speculation to divide the ordinary and the “extraordinary” people- the middle class & the superior elite? Promoting the “us-them”, “favor- disfavor”? EU propaganda will only harden the resolve of the ordinary people to achieve extraordinary outcomes.

    Never underestimate a committed ordinary majority against the ideologically, secular, idiopathic & sociopath minority. Both are sufficiently educated nowadays!

  30. kevin

    If they have any sense , yes

  31. klassen

    In a recent non leftist impartial study ,the majority of dutch voters whom are voting for Wilders are people with university and or college degrees, and are the better educated.
    Its the under or less educated that continue to vote for the policies of the left/globalists. Europe and its cultures are crumbling under the corporate dictate of brussels and the leftist voters are unknowingly helping to dissolve democracy.
    The big global corporations/banksters cant win, if they do we all loose.
    I hope Le Pen and Wilders whom are not populists win big .
    Its time to drain the EU bog.
    Nigel Farage should be seen as a patriotic hero, the man deserves a metal…

  32. Marco La Rosa

    Hi Bobi,
    Populism is rather overused, but in general, we can say that there are different understanding of what “Populism” means. We can argue that “populism” as it is usually found in media, refers to a style of political communication which is “performed, embodied, and enacted across different political and cultural contexts” (I borrow this from Benjamin Moffitt, from Stockholm University). There are some elements that populism is associated with:
    – an exaggerated divide between “the people” and “the elite”, with the elite being the enemy
    – a strong leader that embodies the will of “the people”
    You have populists associated with different political areas, including liberals, in general, the problem with populism is that it oversimplify problems presenting simple solutions that, in reality, are not feasible. Also, populism tends to divide rather than unify people creating further tension in society.
    Populism as such is historically associated with economic crises or a growing divide between representatives and represented, in a way, it can be healthy for democracy by highlighted the divide and making politicians pay more attention to their voters.
    The problem is that nowadays populists and mainstream parties are changing the way they communicate. You can lie, you can provide “alternative-facts” to appease “the people”, but it is fake listening. The problem of today’s populism is the lack of fact-checking and informed decision made by voters when electing their representative. Without getting too much into the Brexit vote, it is alarming to see how politicians from both side promised or argued on issues that were either false or overestimated. Populists or better, populist political style, tend to illude voters in order to win.

  33. Julia Hadjikyriacou

    If the EU doesnt become more social, most countries will go down this path. You need a balance between serving corporations interests with serving peoples interests.

  34. Victor CP

    The UE gave its back to the people some time ago. This process of decomposition of the EU is unavailable. The euro, the austerity, the undemocratic palace of Brussels, the secrets (TTIP for example), the crazy extention of the UE… we are tired of leaving in a failed experiment. What does the UE do to solve this? Nothing. “populism” is to blame, people don’t read enough, there is nothing to change… It is ok, little by little the UE will disappear. It is a petty, it could have been an amazing way to make Europe a wonderful place, but the fu****g greed has spoiled everything.

  35. Ciprian Anghel

    You never know :)) Nederland and France are in danger to elect some idiots as well so go and vote WISELY

  36. Csilla Lőrinszky

    hopfully not and i trust in my dutch friends and it would be very dissapointing to see if they vote for the natonalists :o

  37. Luísa Cunha Ventura Gagean

    I think that everybody is fed up with the politically correct. EU is declining in terms of economy, and didn’t deal well with globalization. EU must change. Maybe it is an opportunity, to change the whole thing. We cannot compete with countries like China and others that don’t respect humans rights. There workers are like slaves. EU must do like Trump and call the Industry back.

    • Paul X

      Consider yourself lucky, look what America got :-)

  38. Burtman Rafaella

    I want to say about asylum procedure in the Netherlands. We are refugees from Russia of Putin and We suffered from ill-treatment and torture of have been used against us of the Powers of Netherlands. Trolls from the authorities constantly threatened us and we were refused asylum. We have fully proved of our the case. The authorities of the Netherlands have spoiled our files and participated in Crime of Putin’s government. We have all the evidence and are ready to pass it to journalists.

  39. Isidor Burtman

    I want to tell about our asylum procedure in the Netherlands. We are refugees from Putin’s and we suffered from ill-treatment and torture which has been used against us by the Dutch authorities. Trolls from the authorities were constantly threatening us and we were refused asylum. We have fully proved our case. The authorities of the Netherlands have spoiled our files and participated in the crimes of Putin’s government. We have all the evidence and are ready to pass it to journalists.

  40. catherine benning

    Well, if this guy in this video is right, Wilders will face the same fate as Le Pen. Arrested or stopped from winning the election by the people. Democratic majority is now referred to as populist. This is done in order to persuade the electorate that to go along with their desire for political change is unacceptable and wrong. And that they must step in and reverse the election result.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSoXg3-3jzg

  41. Isidor Burtman

    We have a lot of pressure on us from the authorities. This is our second attempt. And lawyers are working against us.

    At the same time the shelter receives many refugees with the purchased “documents” and fictitious stories. They get a positive a fast . It goes by cooperation between the security services. Real refugees get a negative and torture.

  42. johan

    Trump never signed ‘an order to (temporarily) halt refugees from Islamic countries’.

    It is a populist statement.

    Trump ordered the temporary ban on immigration from 7 countries that have a Muslim majority. That leaves more than 40 Muslim majority countries that were not on the ban list. You can agree with that or not but please stick to the facts.

  43. Arie

    Wilders’s success is often over-estimated, also in this article whih reports that he might score 30% of the votes. There is no indicaion that this is true. The present polls indiacte that he might win up to 28 seats in the 150 seat parliament (which is close to 30, so i thinkl that is the origin of the confusion), which implies that he could have something like 18% or 19% of the votes. Evene if that would mean that his party would be the largest one in parliament, it still implies that over 80% of the Dutch do NOT vote for Wilders. Being the ‘largest’ party in the Dutch proportional system does not imply a lot, because more than ten parties will be represented in the Dutch parliament.

  44. Ivan Burrows

    .

    Of course it will as will others, its just a matter of time before it leaves the antidemocratic EU.

    • Sander Jansen

      You obviously dont know our country very well.

  45. Akis Muto

    Well, the EU was a plan to counter the US and Russian influence.
    But modern EU is not rivalring anybody or help anybody out as well.
    They need to change or else the EU will fall

required
required Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

More debates from this series – Elections 2017 – The Netherlands View all