A History of D66 (lecture given in Athens)

Text of a speech given in Athens, on 26th October 2013, for the Social Liberal meeting organised by Koinonia Action to prepare the 2014 European Elections.

Good morning,

As a former member of D66 Rotterdam, I was asked by Hugo van Haastert to give you a short overview of the History of our party. I hope it will help give you all an idea of how it appeared in Dutch politics. This History was not an easy one and it might be helpful for our Greek friends to learn from their Dutch counterparts some of the difficulties they will no doubt face as well.

D66 is the heir of a more ancient Dutch liberal and progressive political tradition, following pre-WWII parties such as the VDB (Free-thinking Democratic League). As the name indicates, the party was created in 1966. However, it participated in its first elections in 1967, where it won 7 seats in the lower house of Parliament (150 total seats), quite a record for a new party in the Dutch political landscape. The party was created based on a call by 36 personalities of the media and politics, led by the late Hans van Mierlo, published the 10th October 1966.

These personalities were concerned about the lack of direct involvement of citizens in the political decision process, they wanted more individual freedom for all as well as a modernization of the institutions of the Netherlands (based on the 1848 fundamental law). Last but not least, D66 founders wanted to offer an ideological alternative in the existing Dutch landscape. This Dutch landscape was at the time deeply rooted in confessional organizations (religious pillarization) and in a strong opposition between conservatism and socialism. D66 proposal was one linking a liberal economy and more secular society supported by a sustainable and fairer welfare system. On the international level, D66 favored more European integration and cooperation as well as a reinforced participation in NATO, but at the time also wanted to open the door to cultural and economic exchanges with the Eastern countries under Soviet control. From the start, the party defined itself as social liberal, progressive and reformist.

From the start too, the party was quite popular with a certain intellectual elite, academics and generally people with a higher education level. After its initial success in the 1967 elections, D66 placed itself in opposition to the (conservative) governing coalition of the time. In 1971, it won 4 more seats in Parliament, and created an alliance with moderate left wing parties (Labour and Christian Left), called the Progressive Accord, with a common program. This led D66 to lose 5 seats in the 1972 elections. Nevertheless, the Progressive Accord won the elections but had to enter a coalition with more religious left wing parties. Hans van Mierlo subsequently left the party direction, replaced by Jan Terlouw.

Until 1974, the party saw a succession of electoral failures, nearly ending in the dissolution of D66. To avoid this, Jan Terlouw tried to call for more popular support and reoriented the party position towards more liberalism and less insistence on institutional reforms in the country. This paid off and the 1977 elections were a success with 2 more seats in Parliament. This success was doubled in 1981 with D66 reaching a representation of 17 MP’s. It entered a governing coalition with the CDA (conservative Christian Democrats) and the PvdA (Labour). Due to ideological and personal differences between the two main parties in the coalition, the government could not last more than 9 months. D66 continued to support the CDA, despite their clear ideological differences, in a restricted coalition. This did cost the party 11 seats in the 1982 elections. Jan Terlouw left the party leadership, replaced by Maarten Engwirda, and D66 entered opposition.

In 1986, Hans van Mierlo came back to the direction of the party. Unlike Jan Terlouw, who represented the more progressive liberal wing of the party, Hans van Mierlo was representing a more pragmatist one also called radical democratic. Three seats in the Parliament were won in 1986, and later three more in 1989. Although the party leadership was willing to participate in a coalition with the conservative liberal VVD and the Labour, the third partner involved, the conservative CDA disagreed and D66 remained an opposition party, although in a rather constructive way. This attitude was popular with the voters.

In 1994, they doubled their ballots for D66, with its best representation in parliament ever: 24 seats. The party could eventually enter its much desired coalition with the VVD and PvdA (social democrats). This lead to one of the longest coalitions in recent Dutch History, the two “Purple Cabinets” (Paars) of Prime Minister Wim Kok. D66 could eventually try to implement most of its program: the democratization of politics, the liberalization of the economy and several progressive social initiatives. Amongst these were the legalization of euthanasia, same sex marriage, the regulation of prostitution, the introduction of more direct democracy via referendums and the direct election of mayors. While the economic and social policies were supported by the other coalition members and succeeded, the institutional reform proposals were all refused by members of the other parties. In return for these elements of its program, D66 nevertheless obtained an increase of the funds allocated to education and research and innovation, as well as more environmental policies. It is also in 1994 that D66 European Parliament representation switched from independent to the ELDR group (ALDE). Anyway, Hans van Mierlo, then Foreign Minister, left the party leadership again in 1998, replaced by Health Minister Els Borst. The party lost 10 seats in the parliament although it remained in the second Paars cabinet. Els Borst was subsequently replaced at the head of the party by Thom de Graaf. At the same time, a group inside the party called “Opschudding” (Upheaval) began to demand a more progressive liberal approach in the party direction. Since institutional reforms were rejected again in 1999 by the Senate, D66 temporarily left the government, before joining it again during new negotiations.

All this ended in 2002, when, despite its objective economic success, the Paars Coalition lost heavily the general elections, destabilized by the electoral success of the newly founded populist LPF party. With only 7 seats left in Parliament, D66 found itself again in the opposition to the newly created Balkenende cabinet (CDA, VVD and LPF). This was made worse by the 2003 general elections following the disintegration of the LPF and of the coalition. D66 got only 6 MP’s. The Dutch atmosphere was very unfavorable to the moderate reformism and pro-European positions of the party. A wind of nationalism, populism and even extremism was blowing on the usually quiet Netherlands. Thom de Graaf left the party leadership and was replaced by Boris Dittrich. He managed to negotiate a new coalition agreement with the CDA and VVD, effectively replacing the LPF in the cabinet and thus marking a return to more balance in Dutch politics. De Graaf became Minister for Democratization and Dittrich managed to obtain reforms in the education and environment fields. But the party had to vote with the other coalition members for more controversial right wing measures. Unfortunately for D66, this contributed to alienate more of its traditional voters and when the Senate rejected again the constitutional reform which would have allowed direct election of mayors, de Graaf stepped down as Minister.

D66 entered into negotiations with the other coalition parties and got an “Easter Accord” for more reforms. Alexander Pechtold replaced de Graaf at the Ministry of Democratization Reforms and Laurens Jan Brinkhorst became Minister of the Economy. This accord was ratified by the D66 members in congress and in public (as the debates were broadcasted live on public TV). But in 2006, Dittrich left the party leadership, protesting against the policy of the other coalition partners to send more troops to the Uruzgan province of Afghanistan. This was touted as purely a reconstruction mission to the Afghan government, but many D66 members believed it was simply a military reinforcement of NATO operations. D66 MP’s voted against the cabinet, with the opposition parties. Lousewies van der Laan replaced Boris Dittrich as party leader (disclaimer: at the time, I was part of the minority in the party in favor of the military intervention).

These dissensions and disagreements about both foreign policy and the more unpalatable measures of the conservative coalition lead to a disaffection of the voters. D66 lost ground in local elections and some members left the party. It is generally considered as one the worst moments of the party History. During internal elections, Alexander Pechtold replaced Lousewies van der Laan as party leader, a position he has hold since then. But before national general elections could take place in 2007, D66 stopped supporting the government about another issue: the debate on the naturalization of VVD fellow coalition MP Ayan Hirsi Ali. A motion of no-confidence was voted against VVD Interior Minister Rita Verdonk, but the Prime Minister refused to let her go, which precipitated the fall of the government. Both D66 Ministers resigned in June 2006 and the Balkenende cabinet continued as a minority government until the general elections of November. In these elections, D66 got its worst historical result, with only 3 MP’s in the Lower House of Parliament.

This lead Hans van Mierlo to publicly ask the question of the party relevance in the increasingly polarized Dutch political debate, at the 40th anniversary of D66 foundation. His answer was that, despite its errors of the past, there was still ideas, reforms and proposals that D66 could bring to the public. He also supported Alexander Pechtold’s leadership towards such goals. His feeling was vindicated by the better performance of D66 in recent polls and elections. In 2009, it managed to gain 3 representatives to the European Parliament. Alexander Pechtold’s combative dispositions in the Second Chamber debates won him the sympathy of the public and of fellow MP’s. Particularly, he began frontally attacking the populist far-right PVV party and positions, daring to call its leader Geert Wilders a racist. These oratory jousts with Wilders and with the government ministers made of Pechtold the de facto leader of the opposition in the Second Chamber. Such visibility helped in the ballot box and D66 won ten seats in the 2010 general elections. In the municipal elections the same year, the grass root campaign of D66 paid off as well, leading to record wins in city councils (more than 600 councilors all over the country). More disclaimer: I participated in this election campaign in the city of Rotterdam and I can testify to the enthusiasm shown by the party members and militants. Unfortunately, this was also the year that party founder Hans van Mierlo passed away.

At that time, the PVV of Geert Wilders, which was supporting the minority coalition of the Rutte government, took back this support about budgetary issues. Together with the Green-Left and the Christian Union parties, D66 took the responsibility to help the CDA and VVD caretaker government pass an austerity budget. In the September 2012 elections D66 program of reform proposals won it 12 seats in the current Dutch Parliament. This relative popularity is also reflected in the number of party members which rose to 23 500, an all-time record and a very good score for a small country like the Netherlands.

The party expects thus good participation and hopes for even better results in the 2014 local elections. In any case, it will be presenting even more candidates than in 2010. These MP’s, MEP’s, city and district councilors and candidates will defend the five principles of D66:

• Trust in people’s own power (support creativity and self-development)
• Think and act internationally (European federalism and participation in world affairs)
• Reward performance and share wealth (economic dynamism and proper welfare)
• Work toward a sustainable and harmonious society (prosperity respecting the environment)
• Cherish civil rights and shared values (personal freedom, equality, the rule of law…)

Thank you for your attention.

Tweet

Two Party System

Democracy (as understood in the Western concept of the word) has existed in all kinds of ways and institutional constructions. All of these constructions have included the idea that one of the fundamental rights of the citizens was to organize themselves in political structures conveniently called "parties". Gathering of people interested in the same ideas, as well as vehicles for the personal ambitions of some, parties have always been a fixture of democracy (and even of many non-democratic regimes). The European institutions recognized this too and parties exist at the European level, even though they have some difficulty to be recognized by the EU polity.

This said, there are fundamental differences between the party set up in the different democratic countries. In some countries, they are simple associations of citizens, with little more difference with a sport club than their objectives. In others, they are an integral part of the institutions, with a status well apart from other groups of citizens. Another major distinction between party systems is simply their number in a a given country. Some countries have essentially a two party system (to simplify, 'left vs. right"), some have a three party one and many if not most have a multiple party system. It would be extremely disingenuous to pretend that these difference have no effect on the political institutions and the political life of a country. On the contrary, these differences actually contribute to define the institutions and are in turn defined by them. But, unlike the constitution of a country, the party set up is rarely or never fixed. This can have tremendous and unexpected effects.

Let's take a couple of example. The USA, for instance, have a two party system, very rigid and highly integrated in the country's institutions. Parties there are in no way ordinary associations, but there is simply little political life outside of the Republican and Democrat parties. The United Kingdom recently evolved from a quasi two party system to a theoretical three party one. Although we could argue that the UKIP is a 4th player, it weighs too little in the country's institutions to seriously threaten the Tories, Labour and LibDem hold on power. France, Germany or the Netherlands are all multiple party set up, at least to a point. While the weight of the different Dutch parties can be reasonably considered as truly variable, France and Germany both have a very dominant right and left parties (UMP and PS in France, CDU-CSU and SPD for Germany). But even in France and Germany, smaller parties can and do actually play a role, would it only be the "king maker" one between the dominant right and left formations.

It is interesting to see that the current massive global crisis which has struck the Western world has affected the political life of these countries very differently, depending on their party set up. Netherlands has reacted to the crisis in a fairly classic way. The balance between the 15 various parties has been strongly modified, but in the end the power didn't change hands much. The crisis first brought a centre government (Labour, Christian Democrats and Conservative), then a slight sway to the right (Christian Democrats, Conservative and National-Populists) as electors blamed the first post-crisis coalition for its inefficiency. In general, it was a typical answer of a multi-polar system: it was easy to adapt because the multiple choices meant mutilple solution and easy adaptation to the new reality. The down side of this greater adaptability of course is that it gave access to power to a fringe party. This can typically not happen in a two or three party system.

In the USA, the strength or rather sheer weight of the two parties is so huge that a crisis can only make the power change from one party to the other. The crisis (amongst other factors) contributed to Obama's victory and did put the Democrats in power. However, their relative inability to tackle problems quickly and the fact that the crisis lasted longer than they thought did bring Republicans a victory in the House after only two years. It is fairly clear for an external observer that the US bipolar system has the advantage of stability. But it is also fairly obvious that it suffers greatly, as a downside, of its rigidity. Outside of the two main parties, there is no room for political power. One can have influence without them, but not exercise power. It also means that the US institutional system has too much inertia and is unable to give a speedy and adequate answer to a major crisis. The result of this is what we can observe on our TV screens: besides the Republican and Democrat parties, citizens organize themselves in a series of alternatives. Originally, the Libertarian organisation had this role, but we now see also the Tea Party, the Occupy Wall Street organisation, the Coffee Party, and so on. Obviously, the American institutions being what they are, these organisations can only exist in reference and interdependence with the two traditional parties. They are opposed to them, yet they are forced to ally with them to exist in the political landscape and not only in the streets.

While both set up have their advantages and disadvantages, I have to say that I find the US system extremely dangerous. When, in a democratic society, citizens feel so estranged towards traditional politic organisations that they have to get down to the streets to get heard, something can go very wrong. Democracy's principle is to give legitimacy to the government by having the citizens feel represented by it. The two party system inadequation, rigidity and slow answer to crisis put this democratic basis into jeopardy.
Tweet

Dutch Army plans revisited

Tweet
Dear readers,

My girlfriend had a funny remark this morning about the Dutch armed forces. Apparently, the new defence budget of the Netherlands includes no replacement for its tanks or transport helicopters. She said: "what is the point of a modern army without tanks? They really should get rid of it completely if they can't do it seriously". I had to laugh but to give her the point.

I had read yesterday that its submarine forces (already reduced to three after the damages sustained by the 4th) would be scrapped too. At the same time, the Dutch Defence Ministry is reserving billions of dollar for the basic (non VTOL version) of the US made JSF. And anyone with a ounce of reason will think: WTF? Why buy an extremely expensive plane (the most expensive there is, in fact) to a non-European entity, undermining European defence? Why the version least useful for external intervention and force projection? Why on the other hand refuse to replace the materials actually useful in today's world affairs: submarines, helicopters and armour? I thought about it a little bit and no rationale reasoning came to me.

But then I realized there is a simple explanation: follow the money. The Dutch coalition is made of VVD and CDA (right wing, near to Dutch big money and business interests). Their own interest is not to improve the Dutch defence capabilities or the European coordination. Their interest is to fill in their pockets and the ones of their business friends. Search no further... I suspect that the US industrials (and particularly the ones making the JSF) are ranking highly amongst these friends.

Will we pluck the chicken or kill it?

Dear readers,

I have listened with disgust to many of the comments made in the UK and in the Netherlands about the so-called Icesave deal. This is a nasty piece of chauvinistic bullshit if there is one. Let's go back to the facts. In 2007 and 2008, many Dutch and British citizens (as well as most Icelandic people) subscribed to Landbanski saving accounts which were proposing extraordinary returns, far above the (then already quite high) market interest rates. Unfortunately for them, such rates could only be achieved through a semi-pyramidal scheme, part of the returns being funded by capital being invested by the new customers. Please note that each national group of citizens was also relying on guarantees from their respective national finance regulators. This lasted until the now infamous credit crisis burst, leaving thousands of people with virtually nothing left of their savings.

Obviously, these customers turned back to their state and activated the refund requests linked to the national guarantee. Some of them, however, had invested amounts in the Landbanski scheme that were higher than the national guarantee limit. They lost a lot of money, on top of the promised interests. Understandably, these citizens and the public organisations that had imitated them (regional councils, towns and other districts) were quite angry at the Icelandic banks for having failed them, despite the fact that they should probably have known better. There is indeed no such thing as a saving system which can deliver twice the market interest rate.

However, things became uglier. Hit by a triple bank failure (aggravated by the UK uncompromising attitude), the Icelandic currency lost most of its value and the Icelandic economy collapsed. Iceland new government and its citizens, understanding for the first time that their previous go-it-alone policy was not protecting them in times of crisis, decided to apply for EU membership. The reasoning is that the European Union, particularly its monetary aspects (the Euro), could protect them in the future from similar disasters. This was favourably seen by most EU member states (in normal times, Iceland would be a net contributor to the EU budget). But the UK and Netherlands, were both governments are in difficult electoral situations, facing strong populist criticisms, vocally requested that Iceland first reimburse the sums they had advanced themselves to their duped citizens. This is called the Icesave package deal and is currently being discussed by the Iceland Parliament, the Athling (the oldest Parliament in the world).

This is unfortunately probably going to derail the whole process. EU membership negotiations were already going to be difficult, due to a understandable worries from the Icelandic fishery sector. But the new British and Dutch exigences are enraging an already touchy Icelandic public opinion. And I can only give my support to the unfortunate Icelandic citizens. Why on Earth, when they are already down, highly indebted and suffering from a terrible crisis, should they be forced to support the costs of guarantees that were passed by other governments. Why should they pay for the misdeeds of a private bank which only happens to share a geographic situation with them. Why should they be asked to cover on their own money the risks taken by other people? Why should they in other words, pay for the greed of fellow Europeans? I see no ethical basis for this. I don't see any legal reason for this either. On the contrary, I believe that we should rather give a shoulder to fellow Europeans, especially at a time when everyone is suffering. That's what solidarity is for. That's what the EU is for: being stronger together, not screwing the weakest link...

European marine defence

Dear readers,

As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.

The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.

The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.

Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.

Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.

These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.

I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...

Rotterdam gets a new (Muslim) mayor

Dear readers,

Rotterdam got this week-end a new mayor. Ivo Opstelten, the former VVD (conservative) mayor was leaving, and the gemeenteraad (city council, in Dutch) chose for a man from its main party ranks, the PvdA (Labour). Usually, debates on this type of choice turn around the fact that there is no popular vote for mayors under the Dutch grondwet (constitution). But this time, it's a whole other sort of criticism that erupted. You see, the new mayor is Morrocan born and double nationality holder Ahmed Aboutaleb, Amsterdamer, Muslim and former State Secretary for Social Affairs.

And that was a bit too much for the second Rotterdam's party: Leefbar Rotterdam, an ultra-conservative and anti-immigrant group, heir to the late maverick character, Pim Fortuyn. It was clearly his shadow that was hovering above the town hall this week-end, if you believe his angry supporters. Right wing Marco Pastors and Ron Sorensen both were angrily reacting to the nomination (and very likely confirmation by Queen Beatrix) of the new mayor. To say that they have difficulty to swallow such a choice is an understatement. In terms carefully chosen to avoid any accusation of racism, they both denounced the nomination.

For both of them, the convenient excuse is that Aboutaleb would probably never have been chosen as mayor, should the choice be made by popular vote. And they do have a point there. The choice of mayors in the Dutch system never was very democratic (despite recent attempts) and is more a soup of tit for tat agreements between the ruling coalition parties. Aboutaleb choice is that too (he hadn't got the Ministry he was looking for during the current government negotiations). But it is clearly also a lot more. Beyond the obvious symbol and the controversial message sent to the (massive) immigrant population in the Netherlands that they are welcome indeed, there is also the choice for a very strong, popular and skilled character.

Aboutaleb might be the Muslim son of a Moroccan imam, he is also very articulate and well educated, a long time journalist and civil servant, later becoming a politician. He is certainly not new to politics, having fenced on the seats of the Twede Kamer (the Dutch Lower House) against PvVer (extreme right wing) Gert Wilders or VVDer "Iron" Rita Verdonk. He was also already famous for having publicly and strongly declared that young immigrants (regardless of their culture of origin) should accept Dutch culture, ways and mentality or "pack and go home". A declaration, made after the gruesome assassination of right wing film maker Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan terrorist, that hadn't win him much slack with most Muslim fundamentalists but had won him the respect of most Dutch people.

I don't know Aboutaleb personally, but I certainly know his reputation and his ideas. While I might not agree with him on everything (he remains a socialist and a Muslim, after all), I certainly appreciate the choice of a skillful and courageous politician as new mayor. It is clearly also a very good choice for a city which has alledgedly a majority of its population coming from abroad (me included). So, Ahmed Aboutaleb, welcome to Rotterdam and go for it!

It's NO again...

Dear readers,

So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.

The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.

Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).

Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.

Geert Wilders and the Koran II

Gert Wilders eventually published his film on the internet. Fitna (that's the title, and it means division in Arabic) is a sixteen minutes montage of archive images (international and Dutch) and tacky music. It also shows gruesome news archives, such as a beheading and various terrorist attacks by some extremist Muslim groups (mainly Al Qaeda). There are also a couple of provocative pictures such as one of the caricatures of Muhammad from the Jyllands Posten and a short view of the Koran (read in the wrong direction), followed by the noise of pages torn. Fellow Muslims, don't worry, the film production informed us that the pages actually torn off were from a telephone book. Yeah, right... The symbol is there. Anyway, to summarize on such a non event, it is a totally uninteresting film with no original image whatsoever and a poor message. It can be summarized as: "Some Muslims do horrible things and follow some very extreme surates from the Koran. Ergo, most Muslims are dangerous people and should radically change their views and amend their religion or get the hell out from the Netherlands".

Needless to say that the film was not welcome in the Netherlands (a traditionally very tolerant country). Politicians from practically all parties did what they could in term of damage control before the publication and after. But the law in the Netherlands is fortunately very liberal and protects freedom of opinion. So the film was published on the Internet (no TV station wanted to take the risk to publish him in its entirety, which is I think a shame). And now that it is done, I could also add: why all the trouble? There is nothing interesting there. It is a non event. Ok, it is more of a media event than a real event. The film is provocative but pretty mildly, the images are gruesome, but they are only archives. And the film is full of mistakes and approximations.

In the end, Geert Wilders managed to get sued three times for it. The Muslim associations in the Netherlands sued because it attacks religion (under the anti-racism laws). This has no chance of success because of the prominence of the freedom of expression laws. The caricaturist of the Jyllands Posten sued (and might win) because his caricature was used without his authorization, which is a violation of European laws on copyright. And a Dutch Muslim artist sued (and won) because his picture was used in place of the face of a Dutch-Moroccan terrorist.

As we say in French: "Circulez, y a rien à voir" (go on, there is nothing to see)!