Ukraine-Netherlands:Time running out on Ukraine referendum - by Janene Pieters

The Dutch government is running out of time for finding a solution on what to do about ratifying the associatioin agreement between the European Union and Ukraine.

The deadline is November 1st. And it doesn't seem likely that a decision will be made on Friday, NU.nl reports.

"Today and in the coming days we are considerably going to talk about it", Minsiter Bert Koenders said, according to NU. "We still have a few days. We'll try to find a solution to the last moment."

Prime Minister Mark Rutte failed to find support among the opposition parties for a compromise. The compromise entails still ratifying the treaty, but also addressing the concerns of the voter majority that voted against the treaty in the Ukraine referendum in April.

The government wants a binding amendment added to the treaty which explicitly states that the treaty is not a prelude to EU membership for the Ukraine, that the Netherlands has the right to refrain from military cooperation and that extra money will not be transferred to the east European country. 

Note Almere Digest: The military component of this treaty is what most people who voted against it in the referendum are bothered by. The reason is simple: The majority of Dutch citizens don't want to continue to be part of US military adventures like the one the Netherlands is presently involved in the Middle East. A cruel and never ending war in Syria or Iraq, which is not only a total failure, but also costing the Dutch taxpayers millions of Euros, and the result of a massive flow of millions of refugees into  the EU.  

Read more: Time running out on Ukraine referendum | NL Times

The Netherlands: Dutch PM criticized for "vagueness" on Royal family tax files - by Janene Pieters

A number of parties in the Tweede Kamer - the lower house of Dutch parliament - criticized Prime Minister Mark Rutte for the "vague" manner in which he handles files on the Royal family.
 
According to the parties, Rutte was not transparent in his information and a series of incidents involving the royals is bad for support of the monarchy, NU.nl reports.

The parties point to an alleged tax deal in which the Royal family is compensated for the taxes they pay, controversial sales of art, high maintenance costs of their  Golden Carriage and the their yacht the Groene Draeck and a high allowance crown princess Amalia will receive when she turns 18.

D66 leader Alexander Pechtold accused Rutte of making the King unnecessarily vulnerable by not being open, fair and transparent" about the Royals.
Read more: Dutch PM criticized for "vagueness" on Royal family files | NL Times

The Ideal Nation State: Free Universal Health Care, Free Quality Education and a Fair Share Tax System-does it exist?

Sounds too far fetched - not at all.

When we look at Unversal Health care there are thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception . The following list, compiled from WHO sources where possible, shows the start date and type of  system used to implement universal health care in each developed country .

Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.

If we look at Free Quality education and live in a country where it is not free but costly, like in the US, or if you fail to qualify for fully-funded university scholarships, consider enrolling in universities that are tuition free or universities that charge low tuition fees. Countries like Finland, Austria, Norway, Germany, and Sweden offer different types of free/low tuition schemes for international students.

scholars4dev.com has compiled information and provided links to tuition-free Colleges and Universities in these countries.

According to studyinfinland.fi: There are currently no tuition fees charged in Finland, regardless of the level of studies and the nationality of the student however tuition fees for non-EU/EEA students will be introduced from autumn 2017 onwards for English-taught Bachelor’s or Master’s programmes. Doctoral level studies will remain free of tuition fees.

Updates concerning the forthcoming non-EU tuition fees and related new scholarships options can be found at www.studyinfinland.fi/tuitionfees2017.

Remember that even when there are no tuition fees, you still need to plan your finances – you are expected to independently cover all your everyday living expenses during your studies in Finland.

At the moment, scholarships there are mainly available only for Doctoral level studies and research.

There are now a number of Universities also offering online degrees/courses for free.  The first such University is University of the People which is a tuition-free, non-profit, accredited online university dedicated to opening access to higher education globally.  University of the People offers online Associates and Bachelors Degrees in Business Administration and Computer Science.

This was followed by an initiative of MIT and Harvard called edX which is a learning platform that gives students from any country the opportunity to take free online courses offered by three premier Universities in the US – Harvard, MIT, and UC Berkeley and about 50+ Universities and institutions.

Following this trend, Coursera was introduced which is an online learning platform that partners with the top universities in the world to offer online courses in many fields of study for anyone to take, for free.

Last but not least: which countries have a Fare Share Tax System? For the US one place to turn for factual information on who pays how much percent of the total in income taxes is a report posted on the American Spectator’s blog on May 6, 2015. The data come from 2014, and are reported by the Tax Policy Center, which is the creation of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two entities not known for right-wing sentiments. According to the IRS, in 2014 the top 1% of all income earners paid 45.7% of all federal income taxes, but earned 17.1% of all income in the U.S. The top 20% paid 83.9% of all federal income taxes, after earning 51.9% of all income in America. The middle 20% of income earners – who the American Spectator claims are the true middle class in America – paid 5.9% of all federal income taxes, but earned 14.8% of all income.

In Europe The EU Commission suggests that tax policy should be geared towards meeting more general EU policy goals. Tax policy must contribute to achieving the goal established at the Lisbon European Council of March 2000 and confirmed at the Stockholm European Council in March of this year of making the Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. This means that efforts must be made to achieve a durable reduction in the overall tax burden in the EU, by ensuring a balance between cutting taxes, investing in public services and sustaining fiscal consolidation. At the same time, tax policy must be fully consistent with other EU policies such economic, employment, health and consumer protection, innovation, environmental and energy policies. But in particular tax systems must allow individuals and businesses to benefit fully from the Internal Market. This implies a need to focus on eliminating the inefficiencies due to the co-existence of 15 different tax systems within the EU and on making those tax systems simpler and more comprehensible to taxpayers.\

At the recent European Commission’s “Debate on the Future of Europe” event in Luxembourg there was a comment from the audience arguing that corruption and tax evasion in some European countries was one of the root causes of the economic crisis in Europe, and it should be up to individual member states to solve their own problems:

One thing the people can do to promote changes on any of the issues listed above is to use their voting power and their brains to vote in gthose politicians who are in favor of Free Unversal Health Care, Free Quality Education and a Fair Tax System, and vote out those who do nothing else than give you promises and more promises.

It is high time for voters around the world to clean-up those political systems which have brought us non of the above,  but instead, constant warfare, environmental disasters, while they empowered corporate entities to infiltrate and manipulate prevalent political systems.

© EU-Digest  

The Netherlands: No Justice in the Netherlands - by Judith Bergman

A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders' appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that."

Because of the "fewer Moroccans" statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for "deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race." Second, for "inciting hatred or discrimination against these people."

Wilders' defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: "Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,", Knoops said "The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this."

As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. "It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions." Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders' freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.

The court's response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance" and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians' freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.

Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:

    "We also have sh*t Moroccans over here." -- Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
    "We must humiliate Moroccans." -- Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
    "Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." -- Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.

The court discarded Wilders' defense attorney's argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.

The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language ("sh*t Moroccans") and what could be considered direct incitement ("We must humiliate Moroccans"). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone "sh*t" because of their ethnic origin?

It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.



Read more: No Justice in the Netherlands

The Netherlands: Insurance companies face 10% ceiling on premium hikes

The financial services complaints authority says insurance companies must limit premium rises to 10% following ‘dozens’ of reports about increases of 20% and more.

Two of the complaints came from Achmea and Meeus Groep customers, who were both faced with what Kifid said were ‘exorbitant’ premium hikes.  In one case Achmea raised the premiums for a general insurance package 20.22%.

In the second, the cost of moped insurance via the  Meeús Groep went up almost 174%. The premium increase in these two cases was so far-reaching that the contracts should be considered new ones, Kifid said. And because the insurance companies had not cancelled the old contracts, they remained valid and the old premiums still applied.

Changes to current contracts should be limited in terms of their financial impact and a maximum rise of 10% would be appropriate, the organisation said in a statement.

Kifid’s recommendations are not legally binding, but are usually adopted by insurers and the organisation said it expected they would fall into line about a maximum premium hike.

Americans spent $11 billion in bank fees in 2015 — here’s how to avoid them

Some 10 million U.S. households don’t use any type of bank account for their money, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. While some people who don’t use a bank say it’s because they don’t have enough money, a third of them say it’s because they have a fear of high or unpredictable account fees. They may be right to have that concern.

Banks made about $11.2 billion in fees from consumers’ overdraft and non-sufficient fund penalties in 2015, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

And just 8% of account holders (typically those with low incomes, and who also may be young) carry overdrafts and pay about 75% of all overdraft fees, according to the CFPB.

More than two-thirds of people who consistently overdraft said they would prefer to just have their transaction declined instead, according to research from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit based in Philadelphia. But they don’t realize they could have it that way now. Since 2010, banks have been required by law to let consumers opt in to allow their accounts to be overdrafted (if they don’t, their transactions would be declined); still, according to Pew, 52% of overdrafters don’t remember opting in. Thaddeus King, an officer for Pew’s consumer banking project, said it’s also possible to revoke permission for overdrafting, which is an option some might want to consider.

Read more: Americans spent $11 billion in bank fees in 2015 — here’s how to avoid them - MarketWatch

Spain's Socialists vote to allow Rajoy minority government

The opposition Socialists in Spain have effectively voted to allow the conservatives under Mariano Rajoy to rule as a minority government.

Party leaders decided by a majority at their meeting in Madrid to abstain when Mr Rajoy puts his Popular Party (PP) government to a vote in parliament.

The country had faced the prospect of a third general election inside a year.

But the Socialists forced out their leader, Pedro Sanchez, earlier this month after he rejected abstention.

Mr Rajoy has led a caretaker administration since losing his overall majority in an election last December. A repeat election in June failed to end the impasse but strengthened his hand.