Is an EU referendum back on the Dutch agenda?

Thierry Baudet

This week, the Dutch Parliament held a debate on whether it is necessary to hold a referendum on transferring new powers to the European Union. The debate was triggered by a campaign, called "Citizen's forum - EU" which managed to gather over 63,000 signatures, above the threshold needed (40,000 signatures necessary) to force it on to the agenda of the Lower House.

The campaign demands:

1. An end to the creeping transfer of powers to the EU.

2.  If powers are transferred to the EU, a referendum must be held so the Dutch population can have a say on this transfer of powers.

Two of the campaigners, Dutch academic Thierry Baudet (photo), and economist Ewald Engelen said in a speech to MPs: 

"The Lower House is about to lose its core competences...You won’t be able to decide policy any more. You abolish yourself. But you don’t have the right at all to do this. Because the sovereignty is with us, the people. You are merely the representatives of the Dutch people."

As De Volkskrant reported, the reception was more positive than expected. It was not only the "usual suspects", like Geert Wilders' PVV, the Socialist Party and the Party for the Animals that welcomed the idea. These parties have expressed support for a Dutch-style "referendum lock" in the past,

More interestingly, the social-democrat PvdAalso  came out in support, with its EU-spokeswoman Marit Maij MP, saying: "the PvdA wants to proceed quickly with a possible referendum" - albeit with a lot of qualifications,The party is only in favour of a non-binding referendum, and wants it to be held according to new rules currently being negotiated in the Dutch Senate, which would make it necessary to first obtain 300,000 signatures, a high threshold in the Netherlands (but something which the EU referendum campaigners are considering).

The Christian Union, which sits with the Tories in the ECR Group in Brussels, support the idea, with its spokesman, Gert-Jan Segers MP, saying that "by means of exception we accept an advisory referendum".

Dutch PM Mark Rutte's governing VVD reiterated its support for strengthening national parliaments (something which the PvdA also wants), but is against referendums as a tool of policy.

Meanwhile, a new poll, by prominent pollster Maurice de Hond, reveals that 67% of Dutch citizens want a referendum in the event of new powers be transferred from the Netherlands to the EU:

Ja = Yes, Nee = No

This is against a tricky backdrop: current opinion polls show that Geert Wilders' PVV would have almost as many seats the governing VVD and PvdA combined, if an election was held today (though that goes far beyond Europe as an issue). With the Dutch government's campaign to set limits on the powers of the next European Commission shows, the European election campaign could prove interesting in the Netherlands.

Dutch contortions on budget highlight potential limits of eurozone rules

Jeroen Dijsselbloem (L) and Olli Rehn (R)

The Netherlands, Germany's most prominent triple A ally, has been through a bout of political upheaval in recent weeks, which could have brought down the government. The troubled coalition of the centre-right VVD and centre-left PvdA was struggling to find a majority in the Dutch Senate for its 2014 budget, which aims to comply with the EU's deficit rules.

After several months of discussions with opposition parties the government narrowly managed to convince three opposition parties last Friday to support measures for the 2014 budget: the left-liberal D66 and two small Christian parties: the Christian Union and the SGP.

European Commissioner Olli Rehn's conflicting statements on the issue illustrate how the Commission now must attempt to cajole the member states into line. He suggested in June that the Netherlands should ideally aim for a 2.8% deficit, with Finance Minister (and Eurogroup Chairman) Jeroen Dijsselbloem responding that the 3% EU deficit target was already difficult enough. This week Rehn praised the Netherlands for reaching a deal on a 3.3% deficit in 2014, even saying that the US should follow the example and "go Dutch". By the way, the government's own economic advisory agency, the CPB, thinks the real deficit will be 3.5%.

Martin Visser, the finance editor of the Netherlands' most-read daily De Telegraaf commented that:

"Even before all the calculations are made, Rehn provides a political judgment instead of a purely economic one."

When push comes to shove, the European Commission is always liable to grant a bit more wiggle room to national governments - illustrating the difficult in enforcing the EU's souped-up budget rules. This week German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble criticised Rehn’s decision to exempt large scale public investments from calculations of member states’ structural deficits, describing it as a “re-interpretation of criteria”. What constitutes a 'structural deficit' is, of course, always open to debate and therefore finessing.

On a side note, Dijsselbloem's role as Eurogruop chair is undoubtedly getting tougher. Telling other eurozone member states to get their house in order when your own country has been in the EU's "excessive deficit procedure" since 2009 must be increasingly difficult.

So, after a whole range of eurozone reforms (think Fiscal Pact, six-pack, two-pack etc) the lesson seems to be that legal rules just won't trump politics.

Plus ça change...

Has the Dutch VVD moved further than the Tories on EU reform and return of EU powers?

In the Dutch Parliament earlier, the VVD (the party of the Dutch PM) EU spokesman Mark Verheijen said he thought EU treaty change was “inevitable” and what is more

"when we want less Brussels in several domains, return whole policy areas, then we should not shy away from the option of treaty change."

This is interesting for three reasons:

First, though stressing the need for the EU to do less, until now, the VVD hasn't really been calling for the return of 'EU powers' - this statement is a challenge to the current division of labour between member states and Brussels.

Secondly,  Dutch politicians - including those from the VVD - have been keen to point out they're not seeking EU treaty change, but want to roll back Brussels' interference within the existing structure.

Finally, together with the recent Dutch "subsidiarity review" - that called time on 'ever closer union' in all policy areas -  the VVD Party has moved into areas that David Cameron has so far not dared not go - explicitly looking forward to and advocating treaty change and outlining concrete areas where the EU shouldn't be involved.

Intriguingly, however, later in the same debate Prime Minister Mark Rutte stepped in to cool it all down a bit. Well, he explained, the Dutch government is not actually proactively in favour of EU treaty change "unless it has already become inevitable". In this scenario he would forward his own ideas but he would not take the initiative.

It's almost as if Europe is waiting for someone to take the initiative...

The Dutch coalition is facing stormy waters

According to prominent pollster Dutch Maurice de Hond, just one year on from last year's elections, the Dutch government coalition of the centre-right VVD and centre-left PvdA would lose more than half of its parliamentary seats if elections were held now. They would only retain 30 of their 79 seats, representing 12% (in the case of the VVD) and 7% (in the case of the PvdA) of Dutch voters.

Geert Wilders’ right-wing populist PVV remains the most popular party, which it has been since late last year, and would double its number of seats from 15 to 32, representing one in five Dutch voters. We commented after the elections last year that the relatively bad results for Wilders and the eurosceptic Socialist Party - which would also see an increase in its seats from 15 to 24 according to the latest poll - was hardly the victory for the centre that some had suggested.

The opinion poll also reveals that 48% of respondents do not believe that the coalition will still be in power in 6 months time, while 37% believe it will.

While there is a majority in the Lower House, the coalition doesn't have one in the Dutch Senate. The Dutch government has already announced that there is an agreement within the coalition on €6 billion in extra austerity measures and that the details will be unveiled by Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem on "Prince's Day" on 17 September. The plans would see the Netherlands closer towards the EU budget deficit target.

Although the Senate does not traditionally reject the government budget - the last time this happened was in 1907 - the VVD-PvdA coalition has reportedly approached two opposition parties, the D66 and CDA, to see whether they'd like to join the coalition in order to obtain a majority in the Senate. The D66 have refused.

The Dutch economy faces huge challenges, with a housing bust which saw house prices falling 20% below their 2008 peak, while no less than one million Dutch households find themselves in negative equity. That's one in four households with a mortgage. The ECB has expressed concern that mortgages are putting enormous pressure on the financial positions of Dutch banks, while the world's largest bond investor, PIMCO, has noted the Dutch economic crisis may spill over to government bonds, suggesting it will no longer buy Dutch government paper and that the triple A country may face French borrowing levels in future.

The Dutch economic advisory council of the Dutch government has a stark warning:

"Dutch households now have the highest level of long-term debt in the euro zone. In 1995, the debt ratio in Germany was at the same level as in the Netherlands (about 56%); for Dutch households, it is now twice as high as in Germany"

At the same time, the newspapers continue to run stories about the ongoing eurocrisis, with extra assistance to Greece on the horizon. This is something Prime Minister Mark Rutte said would not happen. In addition, as we report in today's press summary, immigration has become a heated topic; according to a recent poll, 81% of the Dutch population are opposed to the lifting of labour market restrictions for Bulgarians and Romanians in January 2014.

In an attempt to address the public's sense that things are out of control, the Dutch government has published its EU “subsidiarity review”, an assessment of what the EU should and shouldn't be doing, which it will present to other EU governments in the coming months.

However, the above would suggest that the Dutch electorate will need a lot of convincing if it is to put its faith in the mainstream parties again at the next election.

Dutch government: "Time of ‘ever closer union’ in every possible area is behind us”

Dutch PM Mark Rutte (VVD) and Foreign Minister Frans
Timmermans (PVdA) discussing what the EU should
and should not be doing?

For anyone involved in the EU reform debate, this is a must-read. The Dutch government has today published its “subsidiarity review” – an assessment of what the EU should and shouldn't be involved in. Again, we're first to the punch in publishing an English version of the document on our blog.

This is likely to be welcomed with open arms in Whitehall – and should be studied carefully by MPs in Westminster. Though not all good news for David Cameron’s renegotiation strategy – the Dutch have explicitly said they don’t want EU treaty change for example – this is clearly a major step towards a reformed Europe.

First, it shows that discontent with the EU status quo is not simply a UK phenomenon – or a Tory problem as some commentators would have us believe. Secondly, the ideas the Dutch are putting forward are in themselves pertinent, and would go quite some way in achieving a better functioning, more democratic and better focused EU. Finally – and this is where it gets really good news for Cameron - countries like Sweden. Denmark and Germany are far more likely to be persuaded down the reform path if the Dutch are prepared to take a lead with the UK.

So what does the document say? Well, it sets out nine broad principles and 54 specific recommendations, relating to what the EU should and shouldn't do. Many of the proposals have also been championed by Open Europe in various forms (it’s worth re-visiting our “European localism” paper). Most significantly, in the press release, the Dutch government proclaims that the “time of an ‘ever closer union’ in every possible policy area is behind us”. This is not going to go down well in certain corners in Brussels.

The guiding principle is described as “European where necessary, national where possible”, and the tone of the entire document chimes well with Cameron’s EU speech, calling for a “European Union that is a more modest, more sober and at the same time more effective.” Interestingly, it notes that the Dutch EU Presidency in the first half of 2016 “could play a role in promoting such an agenda” – this could coincide with the beginning of the EU referendum campaign in the UK should Cameron be in power.

The 9 general principles include:

• Where the European Court of Justice interprets EU law in a way that EU legislators had not provided for and/or did not intend, then this should be possible to address by amending the EU rules on which the Court based its ruling (this could well be a key plank in Cameron’s renegotiation strategy. An example of where the ECJ ruled in precisely such a way is the Working Time Directive, where the ECJ's interpretation of rules governing on-call time and rest periods for doctors has caused havoc in the NHS);
• Every EU intervention needs to be motivated by a clear legal basis in the EU Treaties, and the Commission shouldn't be making proposals on a legal basis that is tenuous or insecure. The Dutch Government explicitly mentions the English term “creeping competences” (this is very similar to what the UK government wants); 
• EU legislation should focus on main points to achieve shared goals rather than to prescribe in detail how those goals should be achieved (again echoes Cameron’s speech);
• When there are widely shared objections to EU legislation, there should be a mechanism to stop the Commission taking any further initiative in that area – this is a bid to stop new EU laws in areas where national governments don’t want them.

As regards the 54 specific recommendations, they mention individual measures where EU power should be scaled back. There are many overlaps with UK ideas. These include:

• Halting the further harmonisation of social security systems. The document says: “It is necessary to combat the negative impact of labour migration, including the abuse of social security systems” – an issue UK Home Secretary Theresa May has been keen to highlight; 
• Limiting the EU budget - the Dutch hint at scrapping the EU's Globalisation Adjustment Fund and structural funds outside of the poorest regions in the poorest countries on the basis that these do not demonstrate added value (the latter is a proposal Open Europe has championed and which the previous Labour government had pushed for. It’s also gaining traction amongst Tory backbenchers) 
• No expansion of agencies’ remits and no increases in their budgets – Cameron was very critical of EU quangos in his EU speech;
• Working conditions, which should only be regulated in broad outline (health and safety and working time, for example);
• No EU regulation of media pluralism; 
• A two-year freeze in salaries of EU officials;
• Sunset clauses should be incorporated in EU proposals (an old UK demand);
• The Financial Transaction Tax is heavily criticised, because "it has been designed in such a way that even parties outside the FTT area, like Dutch pension funds, will be taxed when they trade financial instruments issued in FTT countries";
• CO2 emissions should be dealt with at the global level rather than via EU legislation.  

There are also some further detailed examples of where the EU has gone too far and where powers should be rolled back. For example, the suggestion is made that flood risk management should only be harmonised at European level for truly trans-boundary water courses. The report also recommends the phasing out of the EU programmes for school milk and school fruit, and heavily criticises the recent proposal to ban refillable olive oil jugs from restaurant (which was eventually dropped by the European Commission).

However, the document also sets out clear limits to what the Dutch government says it is prepared to consider and it does not does call for entire policy areas to be returned to national governments. The Dutch government also says it is “not interested in treaty change or opt-outs” for itself.

Nonetheless, the fact that one of the EU’s founding members has stated that "the time of ever closer union is behind us" is clearly a major development.

From Amsterdam to Brussels with love?

Events may have conspired to prevent David Cameron from delivering his Europe speech in Amsterdam as originally planned but it has still managed to create political waves in the Netherlands.

It is rare for statements from foreign politicians to be the focus of parliamentary debates but last night the Dutch Parliament held a debate specifically on Cameron's speech. Halbe Zijlstra, the parliamentary faction leader of PM Mark Rutte’s VVD party argued that “Cameron’s speech is a more extensive version of the European chapter of the Dutch coalition agreement.”

The relevant section of the Dutch coalition agreement reads:

"The Netherlands asks the European Commission to inventarise, on the basis of subsidiarity, which policy areas can be transferred to national authorities and will put forward such proposals itself."

Indeed Rutte has himself quipped that what will take Cameron two years (i.e. the FCO's Balance of Competencies Review), will take the Dutch Cabinet 6-7 months. Last week, in a joint letter together with Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Rutte also reiterated the VVD/PvdA coalition’s desire for member states to have the right to opt out of individual EU policies, such as the Schengen zone and the eurozone, or from the EU altogether.

Yesterday, in an effort to apply pressure on the coalition in this area, Sybrand van Haersma Buma, the leader of the centrist Christian Democratic Party (currently in opposition but historically a party of government), claimed that “Europe is indulging too much in all kinds of over-detailed rules”, and put forward his party’s own detailed list of areas in which Brussels should not be involved:

- Nitrates Directive
- Air Quality Directive
- European Soil Framework Directive
- Home Energy Labels
- Freedom of the press
- Occupational Pensions Funds Directive
- Income limit for social housing rent
- Family reunification for immigrants (point system)
- Internet cookies regulations
- Public procurement of small building projects
- Maternity leave
- Ministry of Transport tests
- Female quotas on EU company boards

This is going much further than Cameron, who did not present a ‘shopping list', only mentioning general policy areas such as social and employment law and environmental legislation. Interestingly though, many of the above fall into those two categories. Specifically addressing Cameron's position, Buma said:

"He's right…let's go back to what Europe was originally all about...What I want is for several countries to decide together that [certain] matters can better be regulated domestically. A Europe à la carte isn't a good idea…We must get rid of the idea that if you want less Europe, it means you're against Europe from the start."

This is set to increase the pressure on the VVD-PvdA coalition which will try to agree in the coming months on their own list of policy areas which should be dealt with nationally, and which the government can use as the basis for any negotiations in Brussels. PvdA MP Michiel Servaes reacted by saying that Buma was only “following the line set out earlier by the cabinet", but that Buma's list was "a big leap" which ought to be carefully considered and discussed with other countries.

Meanwhile, on his Elsevier blog, Dutch Professor Afshin Ellian, a well-known political commentator, described Cameron's stance as "a third, more pragmatic way between europhobia and europhilia", while in a letter to NRC Handelsblad, nine prominent Dutch professors and academics argued that in order to bridge the gap between EU centralisation and EU citizens, the Netherlands should also have a referendum on its future in the EU, an option supported by 52% of Dutch citizens according to a recent opinion poll.

As we suggested in our analysis ahead of last September’s Dutch elections, in the medium to long term the Netherlands “could well be on the path to becoming a more assertive – and far more complicated – EU partner.”

Dutch PM and FM reiterate the Netherlands' desire for flexible Europe

The concept of a 'flexible Europe' seems to translate across borders. In a joint letter to the Dutch Parliament, Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem have reiterated the government's position that it wants countries to have the right to opt out of individual EU policies, such as the Schengen zone and the eurozone, or from the EU altogether.

Here are the relevant bits from the letter:

"Following the request by member Schouten to the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister (issue number 2013Z01025) for a letter about the exit from the eurozone, we report as following.  

The cabinet introduced in its coalition agreement that it should be possible under mutual consideration to exit from the community arrangements (Schengen, eurozone, European Union). This requires in the case of the eurozone and Schengen a treaty change as the current EU treaty does not foresee this possibility."

Three months is a long time in Dutch politics

Since the elections in September, international attention on the political situation in the Netherlands has faded.

But, over the weekend, a new opinion poll by Maurice de Hond revealed a big change. Only three months after his defeat, the party of right-wing populist Geert Wilders (photo), who campaigned on a platform in favour of the Netherlands leaving both the eurozone and the EU, is resurgent.

Wilders' PVV would be the country's most popular party were these results repeated at an election. That this would be with only 16% of the vote illustrates how volatile Dutch politics has become (it should be noted that at the last election many voters made their minds up at the last minute). But it is still striking that Wilders' Party for Freedom would jump from 15 seats in the September elections to around 24 now, according to this poll.

The two governing parties, the liberal VVD and social democrat PvdA, would fall from 41 to 22 and from 38 to 23 seats respectively, after only a few months in power.

The far left SP, which is also critical of the EU, has likewise profited from the fall in support for the government parties, increasing its number of seats to 22 from 15. The opposition D66, 50PLUS and the Christian Democrats would also see a large increase in votes.

The September election squeezed out the centrist CDA and forced together the VVD and PvDA, which are not natural political bedfellows (besides their shared 'pragmatic' attitude to Europe). The coalition has therefore resulted in several unpopular decisions among each party's supporters. The VVD had to backtrack on the agreed introduction of an extra healthcare levy which would have hit the Dutch middle class hard. In return, it was also forced to sacrifice a number of tax cuts which the party thought it had secured.

However, another important conclusion we can draw from the renewed success of both Wilders and the SP is that criticism of the eurozone bailouts and the EU in general is not going to go away. We noted this in our pre- and post-election analysis of the elections, with the parties of the centre increasingly taking their cues, if not their entire narratives, from the parties on their flanks.

One example of this was Mark Rutte's election promise not to send any more money to Greece. A few weeks ago, at the occasion of the third Greek bailout - or extension of the second - Rutte was forced to admit that he thought it was a real pity "he couldn't entirely keep" his promise, describing it as a "necessary concession".

Some were quick to proclaim the September election as a sign that the Dutch had "voted for Europe", but this was always a simplistic reading of the results and downplayed the potential for future volatility. These results would suggest that Dutch politics remain very unpredictable, and that Wilders and the Socialists are rubbing their hands in the wings.

Too soon to jump to conclusions: the Dutch debate on Europe has only started

As we said in our pre-election briefing, the Dutch elections saw a shift back to the centre, compared to the early signs of the campaign. Granted, a stronger combined majority for the two main parties - centre-right VVD and centre-left PvdA - than many had expected. The Socialist Party stayed on the same number of seats as last time around, while the populist Party for Freedom suffered a pretty heavy defeat (losing nine seats).

Senior Brussels figures were quick to hail the result as a victory for the pragmatic, pro-European centre over the crazy fringe. A victory for further European integration, euroscepticism can't win votes, sort of thing. Some media outlets drew similar conclusions - with some exceptions - claiming the anti-bailout mood in Europe is much over-stated. But is this interpretation right?

There's no doubt that the centre parties mounted a strong comeback, in the face of an increasingly sceptical public on Europe. But to see this election as a victory for the very specific vision of Europe that involves "ever closer union" is spurious. A few points:

First, Geert Wilders is no proxy for unease about where Europe is heading. In almost all aspects of policy Wilders is extreme, and his decision to bring down the last government has undoubtedly worked against his party. The Dutch may not like bailing out other countries, but they do not like reckless politicians either, and some voters considered a vote for him wasted.

As we noted in our pre-election briefing, the centre parties too - particularly VVD - have struck a more euro critical tone of late, perhaps in response to the strong rhetoric coming from Wilders and the Socialist Party. On Europe, the VVD may have crowded out Wilders, particularly by talking tough on bailouts. Regarding Greece, almost exactly repeating Wilders's words, Prime Minister Mark Rutte said, for example, that:

“Enough is enough…An exit may be inevitable, but it will be up to Greece to make that decision…An orderly exit is possible, but not desirable.”

In a comment piece in the FT last year, Rutte was one of the first to call for a clear mechanism to push countries, which do not meet the austerity targets, out of the eurozone – at the time widely acknowledged to be a shot across Greece’s bow. On the EU budget, he has sided with the UK in trying to achieve a real terms payments freeze in the EU's 2014-2020 budget, saying, "If we countries need to cut our budgets, also the European institutions need to do with less."

The Social Democrats, led by Diederik Samsom, played a role in triggering the elections by refusing to support the previous government’s budget dictated by EU deficit rules. It is true, this was their prerogative as the opposition. Nonetheless, they did their fair share of anti-Commission posturing such as:

"[It's about] how the Treaty is being applied…The economy is suffering damage in an unnecessary way because of the demands of the Commission".

And during the election campaign, the party had some other interesting things to say about European integration, such as:

“I’d reserve [Eurobonds] for the moment Europe is away from the abyss. Eurobonds are no rope to drag you out of the abyss. Economies need to converge and public debt needs to stabilise first.”

“I don’t support the blueprint of [EU-federalist D66 leader Alexander] Pechtold with his European government, Finance Minister and Parliament.” 

In the party manifesto, it called for a reduction to both the EU budget and the Dutch contribution to it - not even the UK Tories did that.  

Equally, Europe Minister Ben Knapen, a CDA member - whose party may be needed to achieve a government with majority in both houses of the Dutch parliament - said that "there should be a legal possibility for countries to voluntary or forcefully leave the eurozone. Only then the moral hazard - which is like a hostage - can be dealt with". He also urged to "correct the power the European Commission, which has been enormously growing in recent years."
 
On the wider point about the Netherlands in Europe - and whether this election will make it more or less assertive - the centre parties may be far more supportive of the status quo in Europe, but they are different on economic and social policy, completely different sides of the political spectrum in fact. Making the coalition work at all will be a huge challenge. Throwing the difficulties of the eurozone crisis into the mix makes the task even harder, while any pressure for greater integration may force the governing parties to be seen as acting tough, under the pressure from opposition parties.

No, the Dutch haven't turned into head-banging eurosceptics. But all of this is to say that the debate about the Netherlands' role in Europe, in the face of further euro integration, may just be kicking off.

What the Dutch elections could mean for Europe and the euro

We have today published our thoughts on what the 12 September Dutch elections are likely to mean for the future politics of the eurozone.

Although the EU-critical left-wing Socialist Party has had a strong election campaign, recent polls have seen a shift back towards the centre with the centre-left Social Democrats (PvdA) overtaking the Socialists (SP) to become the main challengers to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s VVD party (centre-right).

According to the latest Ipsos politieke barometer (8 September) the VVD and PvdA are neck and neck on 35 seats each. The Socialists (21) and Geert Wilders’ PVV (19) are vying for third place, with the Christian democratic CDA (13), left-liberal D66 (11), the Christian Union (CU) (6) and GreenLeft (4) all expected to figure.




Therefore, the most likely outcome remains a centrist, pragmatic coalition, which clearly is the preferred option in Brussels and Berlin. The Dutch elections are therefore unlikely to radically change the immediate political dynamics of the eurozone crisis. The country is likely to continue to oppose more bailout cash for Greece or any topping up of the eurozone’s bailout funds and remain a steadfast supporter of austerity in the struggling eurozone economies.

In the medium to long term, however, the Netherlands could well be on the path to becoming a more assertive – and far more complicated – EU partner. With future decisions on potential eurozone debt pooling to come and the prospect of more EU powers over national budgets (including the Netherlands’), Dutch public opinion and the more or less EU-critical parties such as the Socialists and Geert Wilders' PVV are likely to shift the country in a more sceptical direction.

The traditional parties of the centre have also increasingly taken on aspects of Wilders’ narrative on Europe. Neither VVD nor the PvdA are uncritically in favour of everything European, with the VVD making several critical interventions: refusing a penny more to Greece, on the need to limit EU powers in some areas and reduce the EU budget. A huge question will be if these two parties will see an electoral advantage in becoming more EU-critical in light of more potential bailouts, a stalling economy and an ever vocal EU-critical fringe.

You can read the whole thing here.
 

They may have the cup...

It's election campaign season in the Netherlands, with Dutch voters due to choose their next government on 12 September. Caretaker Prime Minister Mark Rutte's VVD party has come up with a rather original way of planting the eurozone crisis into domestic political debate.

On 29 June, the party published the following campaign poster on its Facebook page:

The two players on the right - Andrea Pirlo of Italy and Xavi Hernández of Spain - need no introduction. However, the slogan on the left is quite interesting, as it says,

They may have the cup, not our creditworthiness.

The picture also had a short description above, saying,

Italy or Spain will become European football champions [as we mentioned, the post is from 29 June, two days before the Euro 2012 final]. Now they also need to become champions in cutting their budgets, because if we get things our way, there will be no arrangement through which they can benefit from our financial discipline while not putting their own things in order. Please like if you agree!

To date, the VVD post has 864 'Likes'.

As the elections get closer, tough rhetoric on the eurozone crisis, such as this, is likely to become a feature as Dutch politicians bid to 'steal' votes from Geert Wilders' far-right, notoriously anti-euro (and anti-EU), PVV.

Today, Dutch magazine Elsevier also reported that, at last week’s meeting of the ‘Future of Europe’ group, organised by German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal warned that it was not the time to discuss any further transfer of national powers to the EU, especially in areas such as pensions, labour market and social security.

In light of what we have seen, for instance, in Finland ahead of the latest presidential elections, the picture above is another example of how further fiscal integration and eurozone bailouts are now at the forefront of election campaigns in the Triple-A countries.

"Politicians, now what?"

This is the front page headline of tomorrow's Dutch magazine Elsevier.

The subtitle reads, "the best exit strategy is the break-up of the eurozone".

It seems that people are growing increasingly tired of waiting for an answer to the question and are more than happy to suggest their own solutions.

the future's bright, the future's orange?

The winning party in the Dutch elections, the VVD, has some interesting things to say about the EU on its website. Its leader, Mark Rutte (pictured right) is favourite to become the country's new PM and may prove to be an interesting ally for EU reformers, depending on how much the VVD's rhetoric is watered down by coalition arrangements.

The party's website reads:

The VVD doesn’t want a "European superstate". We want a Europe that functions. Therefore, we don’t need a Constitution, but an EU which limits itself to its core tasks and offers solutions for the 21st century. The solutions of the former century were about agriculture and regional subsidies. In this century it is about climate and energy, asylum and migration flows and fighting terrorism. Therefore we need to go back to what we have: the current Treaties (the Treaty of Nice).

Pretty bold stuff - abolishing the Lisbon Treaty is something the UK's Conservatives wouldn't dream of posting on their website. The party is also committed to reducing the country's contribution to the EU budget, offering a "half price EU", with Rutte recently stating that he sees EU budget negotiations as "the crowbar for reform" and that the "whole system of structural and cohesion funds is largely circulation of money."

He added, "Europe is not a kind of idealistic project. I'm not awake every morning with 27 stars and a European flag over my head. For me, Europe is a pragmatic project that gives us many benefits and should remain so."

Rutte's comments illustrate that the UK media's obsession with portraying David Cameron as an outsider of the EU mainstream are a fallacy. Bar Rutte's opposition to EU expansion, there is a lot that a Conservative-led coalition government could work with here, particularly when it comes to the crucial budget negotiations that will begin in the near future.