The Netherlands: What the Dutch elections are all about … and what they’re not about - by Cas Mudde

Mark Rutte benefiting  from his brawl with Erdogan?

The Dutch parliamentary elections are tomorrow and, like most Dutch political scientists, I cannot wait for them to be over. Never before have Dutch elections been so intensely followed by the international media and I am, honestly, tired of having to answer another question about “the Dutch Trump” (Geert Wilders) or “the Dutch Trudeau” (Jesse Klaver). Obviously, the international media are not really interested in Dutch politics. Rather, they have declared the Netherlands to be the bellwether of European politics. Never mind that the country has a fairly specific political culture, and party politics has changed from ultra-stable in the 20th century to ultra-volatile in the 21st century, the Netherlands is Europe’s future.

Given that the Dutch elections are covered in the same frame as the British EU referendum and the US presidential elections, and are the first of a series of similar elections in Europe, much of what is truly at stake is missed. Moreover, much of what is focused on is secondary at best and irrelevant at worst. So, what is (not) at stake tomorrow?

1 These are not “winner takes all” elections

2 The Dutch are not voting on the European Union

3 The Dutch are not electing a president

International media style the Dutch elections as a “neck-and-neck race” between conservative prime minister Mark Rutte of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and radical-right challenger Wilders, to fit the broader frame of status quo versus populism. Understandably, Rutte has tried to push this idea on the Dutch media too, positioning himself as the only democratic hope to stave off a populist victory. But however convenient it is for selling newspapers or for Rutte, this formula is inconsistent with the essence of the elections. The Dutch are electing a parliament, not a president or premier, and it is not guaranteed that the leader of the biggest party will be the premier. In a parliamentary system the government needs the support of the parliamentary majority, not necessarily of the biggest party. Moreover, the struggle between Rutte and Wilders captures only a minority of the voters: together the VVD and PVV are only polling between 30 and 35%. In other words, the real story is somewhere else.

4 The Dutch are uninspired …

The most stunning number regarding the Dutch elections is that, four days before election day, a majority of the population (54%) did not yet know for which party they were going to vote.

5 … (partly) because the parties discuss the wrong issues

Since the beginning of the 21st century Dutch political campaigns have been dominated by the “three Is” – immigration, integration and Islam – and this year is no different.

In fact, voters are being beaten around the head with those issues on the campaign trail, even if few concrete solutions are offered, at the expense of some of the basic bread-and-butter issues that are actually concerning the majority of population: economic inequality, education, healthcare, and protection of the welfare state.

Note EU-Digest: Unfortunately the Turkey-Holland  brawl has not helped the candidates on the left in this Dutch election, who have hammered on more and real pressing problems, like economic inequality, education, healthcare, and protection of the welfare state on a sure footing, to the contrary. 

So basically, if there are no major surprises it unfortunately could turn out to be business as usual in Holland with Mark Rutte benefiting from the weekend crises with Turkey?

Read more: What the Dutch elections are all about … and what they’re not about | Cas Mudde | Opinion | The Guard

Scotland - Independence beckons: Scottish independence now neck-and-neck, new post-Brexit poll shows – by Matthew Tempes

Support for Scottish independence in the wake of the Brexit referendum is now effectively neck-and-neck, according to a new poll released Wednesday (8 February).

The survey, for the Herald newspaper in Glasgow, puts support for independence at 49% and for the status quo at 51%, excluding don’t knows.

It comes against a backdrop of British Prime Minister successfully getting through a parliament a bill allowing MPs to vote on a final Brexit deal – but with very little consultation or safeguards against a so-called ‘Hard Brexit.’

Whilst still showing a theoretical victory for the status quo, it is within a statistical margin of error – and compares with the 2014 referendum result of 45% for independence and 55% against.

The seismic vote by the UK as a whole – but not Scotland, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar – to leave the EU  last year has brought fresh pressure on the Scottish National party minority government in Edinburgh to hold a fresh referendum.

That has increased with confirmation from Theresa May that Brexit will mean leaving the single market, and – as yet – no deal on the rights of EU workers in the UK, and vice-versa.

Alex Salmond, the SNP’s former leader, first minister, and foreign affairs spokesman for the party at the Westminster parliament, tweeted the result with the words “Game On.”

Read M<ore: Scottish independence now neck-and-neck, new post-Brexit poll shows – EurActiv.com

TTIP: U.S. Trade Policy: Populist Anger or Out-of-Touch Elites? - by Jeff Faux,

Nobody wants it except the
Corporate and Government elites

The presidential primary campaigns of both political parties have exposed widespread voter anger over U.S. global trade policies. In response, hardly a day has recently gone by without the New York Times, the Washington Post and other defenders of the status quo lecturing their readers on why unregulated foreign trade is good for them.

The ultimate conclusion is always the same – that voters should leave complicated issues like this to those intellectually better qualified to deal with them. So much for democracy.

Trade experts, according to Binyamin Appelbaum of the Times have been “surprised” at the popular discontent over this issue. Their surprise only shows how disconnected the elite and the policy class that supports it is from the way most people actually experience the national economy.

The United States has always been a trading nation. But until the 1994 North American Trade Agreement, trade policy was primarily an instrument to support domestic economic welfare and development.

Starting with NAFTA, pushed through not by a Republican president, but by the Bill Clinton in 1994, it became a series of deals in which profit opportunities for American investors were opened up elsewhere in the world in exchange for opening up U.S. labor markets to fierce foreign competition.

As Jorge Castañeda, who later became Mexico’s foreign minister, put it, NAFTA was “an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.”

For 20 years, leaders of both parties have assured Americans that each new NAFTA-style deal would bring more jobs and higher wages for workers, and trade surpluses for their country. It was, they were told, an iron law of economics.

What actually followed were outsourced jobs, wage declines, shrunken opportunities and rising trade deficits. The result has been a dramatic weakening of the bargaining power of American workers.

So it should come as no surprise when the large parts of the U.S. workforce now conclude that these trade deals may have had something to do with the redistribution of income from their pockets to the bank accounts of the top 1% who own and manage large multinational corporations.

Read more: U.S. Trade Policy: Populist Anger or Out-of-Touch Elites? - The Globalist