FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

I saw your advirtisement Francis, your not that good looking, like Walter thinks you are, I still say the other guy is better looking.

However, CG is always good for some confusion.

In the footsteps of Fortuyn

Geert Wilders, the scourge of Dutch liberalism, is determined to make race the key issue in the EU referendum campaign. Stephen Castle meets a politician with a price on his head
20 May 2005


He has spent months sleeping behind bars in a former army camp, travels in an armour-plated car and has up to six bodyguards. The Netherlands' most controversial and vocal critic of Islam has been in hiding since receiving dozens of death threats, including one offering 72 virgins in paradise to any Muslim who beheads him.

But, to the alarm of many Dutch liberals, Geert Wilders is back, just in time for a referendum that has implications for the whole of Europe. Although for security reasons details are vague, Holland's newest, anti-immigration populist will probably use his home town of Venlo to start a national tour promoting a "no" vote in the Dutch poll on the European constitution.

The referendum - the first in the Netherlands for 200 years - will take place on 1 June, just three days after a likely knife-edge vote in France. If both countries reject the treaty, it will become a dead letter.

Three years after Pim Fortuyn, the anti-immigration campaigner, was gunned down and six months after the murder of Theo Van Gogh, another outspoken critic of Islam, Mr Wilders wants race to dominate the campaign.

In an spacious meeting room in the heart of The Hague, the press conference to launch the comeback seems like any other low-key meeting in the Dutch parliament. Only the two bodyguards - the Wilders team calls them gorillas - hint at the fact that this is Holland's best-protected man, staying by his side even in these secure surroundings. With his youthful features and white hair, Mr Wilders, 41, cuts an unusual figure, his hairdo probably styled on that of Bill Clinton but more reminiscent of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

He is sitting in front of two large posters bearing his own image and in front of another banner with the name of his party: Groep Wilders. If ever there were a one-man band, this is it. Joining the group could get you on a death list, so potential supporters are invited to make anonymous donations instead. The press officer does not want to be named in print or to give out his mobile phone number.

Mr Wilders has spent much of the past few months sleeping in a barred room at Camp Zeist, the former army barracks which was used for the Lockerbie trial, seeing his wife only a couple of times a week. Although he is no longer sleeping behind bars, he says: "My security situation has not changed, not for the better anyway. But I am a politician. That is why I insisted on having a bus tour throughout every province of the Netherlands."

Much of the cost of the event will be met from public funds with €40,000 (£27,500) coming from a €1m pot earmarked to the "yes" and "no" campaigns.

Some of his message would be familiar to British Eurosceptics. The EU, Mr Wilders says, is on the way to becoming an "inefficient superstate", manipulated by "Brussels cliques"; the Wilders plan is to "reduce its talks by 90 per cent so we can reduce our contributions by 90 per cent". His slogan "The Netherlands should stay" is artful; a statement with which no Dutch citizen could disagree, it suggests that the European constitution poses a sinister, but undefined, threat. Meanwhile it hints at his other main theme: the fear of being swamped by immigrants.

Mr Wilders has described Islam as a "backward" religion incompatible with democracy and split with his previous party, the VVD centre-right liberals, over their failure to oppose Turkish accession to the EU.

Though there is no non-white face at this press conference, the issue of race dominates proceedings. Asylum and immigration policy forms only a tiny part of the European constitution, and Turkish accession is not addressed, but Mr Wilders thinks they will be decisive.

"This referendum is about sovereignty and immigration", he says. His argument is that the constitution apportions voting weight in part according to nation's populations, thereby making Turkey potentially the most powerful nation in the EU.

Unlike the UK, the Netherlands has no opt out from justice and home affairs policies and will lose its veto in several areas. This, Mr Wilders says, means that the Dutch could be forced to give legal status to illegal immigrants - to adopt the "terrible policies" of countries such as Spain.

The argument is emotive, almost certainly incorrect and based on a scenario which is politically inconceivable. But simplistic messages work.

Mr Wilders wants to halt all immigration from non-Western countries completely for five years, set strict quotas for asylum-seekers, and to offer financial incentives for non-white immigrants to go home. "In Britain your Conservatives lost the election because they didn't use immigration enough," Mr Wilders tells The Independent.

How has a maverick such as Mr Wilders come to exercise such influence in a country once a model of tolerance and political correctness?

For years Holland was governed under the so-called "polder model" with differences submerged as consensual coalition government did deals with unions and other interest groups. While this delivered wealth it also denied voters real choice, a deficiency exploited by Mr Fortuyn, a maverick gay academic turned politician. Mr Fortuyn derided Islam as a backward religion for its demonisation of homosexuality and called for immigration to stop under the slogan "the Netherlands is full".

Three years ago this month Pim Fortuyn was shot dead outside a radio station by a white animal rights activist, his death sparking an extraordinary outpouring of public emotion.

After Fortuyn's assassination, his political party became the second largest force in Dutch politics, though it soon collapsed, leaderless, back into relative obscurity.

Then last year came another equally shocking murder - that of Theo Van Gogh, a descendant of the painter and a professional controversialist. The Dutch are renowned for their plain speaking but even by their standards, Mr Van Gogh's language was extreme. He once called Muslims "goat fuckers" in print. But it was his film Submission, chronicling the abuse of women under Islam, that provided the pretext for his grisly murder. This crime, committed in broad daylight in Amsterdam, provoked more repulsion, particularly when it was revealed that a letter explaining the murder had been impaled with knives on his chest.

Lousewies van der Laan, an MP for the liberal Democraten 66 (D66) Party, argues that beneath the surface social and economic changes have bred massive uncertainty. "People have had to get used to so many different aspects of globalisation. Five years ago police didn't carry guns. Now there have been two political murders. It all adds up to new insecurities," she argues.

While Dutch attitudes to multiculturalism have shifted, so too has enthusiasm for the EU. In Brussels officials hark back to the days when the Netherlands, one of the EU's six founders, was a solid proponent of European integration. Now its position at the negotiating table is unpredictable because its internal politics are so volatile. The Dutch resent their status as the highest net contributors per head to the EU. They have been infuriated by the row over the euro's rule book, the so-called stability and growth pact; while the Dutch obeyed the pact, the Germans and French ignored it and got away with it, giving the impression that large and small nations play by different rules.

How this will impact on the referendum remains unclear. The "no" campaign in the Netherlands is deeply fragmented. Most opponents of the constitution come from the far left and argue that the document enshrines free-market values that undermine the European social model. They want nothing to do with Mr Wilders.

The "yes" campaign has big problems too. The Socialist Party backs the constitution but is wary of being too closely identified with the campaign for fear of being associated with a losing endeavour. They do not want to be tarred with the same brush as Jan Peter Balkenende, the Christian Democrat Prime Minister. Last week the government released its first official poll predicting "no", with 40 per cent opposed to the constitution and 35 per cent in favour. This has spread alarm among ministers.

Ms Van der Laan, a prominent "yes" campaigner, points out that a large percentage of the electorate remains undecided. He says: "It is the first referendum in 200 years and everything that can go wrong with a referendum will go wrong. Rather than voting on the constitution people will vote on Turkey's entry to the EU, the Dutch contribution to the EU - which everyone knows ours is the highest per capita. They may also protest over the introduction of the euro, which, because the guilder was undervalued, created inflation, and register discontent with the government."

Sitting at a café table opposite the parliament, Bart Woord, takes a series of calls on his mobile phone, gleaning snippets of intelligence about Mr Wilders' tour. Today he plans to trail the maverick anti-immigration campaigner in a caravan, spreading the pro-European message. Mr Woord, the vice-president of the Jonge Democraten, describes Mr Wilders as a "polarising" influence "focusing on fear about the loss of sovereignty and fear that there are more immigrants". He adds: "We are worried that people will use the wrong arguments and say 'no'."

Mr Woord then pays his opponent an unexpected compliment, contrasting his willingness to tour the country - while under a death threat - to the apathy of many politicians advocating a "yes". "Sometimes," says Mr Woord, "I feel a little alone, a bit of a voice in the desert." Never has there been a more urgent case for the "yes" campaign to get out and make a case which has largely gone by default. With three weeks to go, the pro-Europeans have been warned that they have a lot of work yet to do to avert an upset in a country that once backed European integration by instinct.

Ms Van der Laan argues: "I hold the politicians of the past to blame. You have to explain what you are doing and why. You can't just write a constitution - you have to sell it. A lot of people want to teach a lesson to those arrogant politicians. On Europe, four decades of maintenance has not been done. This train was running for 40 years and now we are asking people to hop on board. Instead people are looking for the emergency break because they don't know where it is going."

In the footsteps of Fortuyn

[..] The "no" campaign in the Netherlands is deeply fragmented. Most opponents of the constitution come from the far left and argue that the document enshrines free-market values that undermine the European social model. [..]

The "yes" campaign has big problems too. The Socialist Party backs the constitution but is wary of being too closely identified with the campaign for fear of being associated with a losing endeavour. They do not want to be tarred with the same brush as Jan Peter Balkenende, the Christian Democrat Prime Minister.

Ms Van der Laan, a prominent "yes" campaigner, points out that a large percentage of the electorate remains undecided. He says:

Why a 'Oui' Is Not Enough

By Jeffrey E. Garten
Newsweek International


May 30 issue - This Sunday, France votes on a new European Union constitution that few voters have read. It's 300 pages long. Instead, they'll be venting on the European project itself, on the prospect of welcoming new members like Turkey, on French leaders who have pushed for closer union, namely Jacques Chirac. A yes vote is sure to be seen as a reaffirmation of EU policies, and a no will bring predictions of political and economic stagnation, even an unraveling of the union.

The constitution does provide for some important organizational changes, including the establishment of a new EU president and a foreign minister. But no matter what happens on May 29, the sad truth is that the EU's economic and political institutions have become dysfunctional. And nothing in the proposed constitution is dramatic enough to really fix that.

France, Germany and Italy have failed to reform their labor laws so that their workers and firms can become more adaptable to hypercompetition from other nations. The big countries of continental Europe have abolished all pretense of the fiscal discipline that would be necessary to trim astronomical social-security costs. The EU has not been able to scale back its massive agricultural subsidies. It has not invested enough in science and technology. It is stalling when it comes to opening up its member-state economies in areas such as financial services. Caught between the United States and China, Europe is unable to compete successfully with either. It's no wonder that multinational companies such as IBM and General Motors have announced plans to reduce their work forces in Western Europe by more than 10,000 people each, or that firms like Novartis have moved R&D operations across the Atlantic.

While the Brussels bureaucracy has been expanding to accommodate 10 new members, European citizens are feeling increasingly divorced from the supranational entities that have been created. Last summer, for example, voter turnout for the European Parliament was scandalously low. On a national level, leaders like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and French President Jacques Chirac have failed to tell their citizens just how much it would take to restore dynamism to the EU.

The implications are ominous. Germany, France and Italy?-60 percent of the GDP of the euro zone?-could see growth slow from the current, anemic pace of 1.5 percent. Unemployment rates, already in double digits, could move higher. Such conditions would provoke even louder calls for protectionist measures in the world's largest trader, one that accounts for 30 percent of global economic activity. In an era of intense globalization, this would be a serious blow to North America, Asia and other regions.

Under these economic pressures, anti-immigration sentiments, already running high, could get worse. They could be part of growing extremism on both the left and the right that leads to political paralysis all over the Continent. It is also easy to envision an EU that turns inward and loses interest in providing leadership on international problems from curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons to increasing foreign aid to impoverished Africa.

Finally, the EU model of a regional group dedicated to extensive levels of internal cooperation?-while strengthening democracy and eliminating regional wars among its members?-has been highly attractive to countries of Eastern and Central Europe, many of which are obsessed with gaining membership (for instance, Turkey and Ukraine). In addition, Asian and Latin American nations have been trying to emulate the EU example in organizations such as ASEAN and Mercosur. The failure of the European Union to deliver on its promise would raise fundamental questions about the viability of these efforts and could lead to resurgent nationalism on three continents.

Other national referendums will follow in June, but because France has been so much at the heart of European integration, its vote is likely to be the most influential. I'd rather see the referendum pass, because the alternative could spook confidence and embolden those who would destroy the EU, making things worse than they already are. But there would also be a problem if a majority of yes votes deluded European governments into thinking that the EU is on track, for such complacency would lead to a continuation of the EU's demise at home and on the world stage.

Whatever happens, therefore, the EU needs a massive jolt in order to make dramatic policy changes. This includes deregulating the workplace and upgrading universities, reining in budgets and farm subsidies, creating one unified market for financial and other services, and enhancing two-way communications not just with member governments but with European citizens. Here's hoping.

Garten is dean of the Yale School of Management

Unexpected Baby Boom

What can Europe learn from the 'exception francaise'?

By Eric Pape
Newsweek International


May 30 issue - Here's a little test. Which European country will have the largest population in the middle of the 21st century? (And remember, this is likely to give the nation added political heft in the European Union.) Could it be Britain? A dynamic economy, low unemployment and sturdy consumer confidence seem likely to spur the optimism that often accompanies childbearing in wealthy nations. How about Germany? Unification was akin to a couple's making a baby?-and it inspired hope, at least initially, for a better future. What about Italy, the land of the beloved bambino, regardless of the nation's periodic booms or busts? No, the most populated nation in Western Europe in 2050 is expected to be... France.

Old Europe? Yes, indeed. France, with the second largest population in the EU, is engaged in what, by European standards, registers as a remarkable population boom. The nation leads in the number of newborns and has the second highest birthrate, after much smaller (and more Roman Catholic) Ireland. The results of France's 2004 Census are out?-and fresh forecasts based on the numbers paint some 75 million people into the French landscape by midcentury, compared with 62.5 million today. That's at least 10 percent higher than the last round of forecasts, based on the 1999 Census. By contrast, Britain is stagnating, Germany is expected to lose 11 million people by midcentury and the number of Italians may cascade from 57.5 million to a Poland-esque 43 million. In fact, nearly all the EU's population growth in 2003 came from France?-211,000 out of 216,000.

France hasn't seen anything like it since the post-war baby boom. Coming against the backdrop of a projected "birth dearth" for the rest of Western Europe, the numbers represent nothing less than what Gilles de Robien, minister of Capital Works, describes as a "thunderbolt" against the prospect of France's historical decline. The country's neighbors should take note. After all, few European leaders are prepared to enthusiastically embrace the alternative, less-dynamic populations, and its corollaries?-less-vibrant economies, more immigration and shrinking pensions and health care. Says Gerard-Francois Dumont, Sorbonne professor and editor in chief of Population & Future magazine: "Every time I am at a conference, people want to know what is going on in France."

And what is going on? Like Italians, the French live in a family-friendly society. So why a French baby boom and an Italian bust? The difference apparently comes from policy and social supports that lessen pressure on would-be parents. Those who work fewer hours, have more job security, free day care and medical coverage are less likely to feel anguish over their children's basic needs. And more than most European countries, France offers all that, not to mention generous parental leave. Compared with elsewhere, says Dumont, France "allows families to better reconcile their professional and private lives." It's no coincidence, he adds, that countries with the fewest familial supports, like Italy and Spain, also have the lowest birthrates.

To appreciate just how strong the link is between public policy and private family planning, meet Pascale Pessy and her husband, Laurent. They recently gave up jobs in Britain to bring up their infant in the small, traditional village of Frangy in France's Haute-Savoie. "We came back for the French health-care system," Pascale says. Her son, born with a clubfoot, required care that wouldn't have been practical in Britain. "We would have had to pay for the four sessions a week at the physical therapist, and I would have had to quit my job to take him there, which would have meant no unemployment."

Such choices are common in many parts of Europe. Surveys indicate, for example, that many German women feel guilty if they work while bringing up their children. The result: German women are nearly three times more likely than French women to have no kids. "It isn't about a tax break here and some money there. It is about covering a whole range of life?-from the workplace to holidays to the home," says Thomas Buettner, chief of the Estimates and Projections Section of the United Nations' Population Division. Can Europe solve its looming demographic crunch by embracing the French exception? You can bet governments across the continent will be looking closely.