Dutch vote to ban New Year's fireworks, but not just yet
The Dutch parliament has voted to ban people buying and setting off fireworks, but not until after next New Year's Eve.A majority of MPs backed a consumer ban but supported a separate motion postponing it because of potentially enormous compensation claims from fireworks suppliers.Fireworks have been a New Year tradition for decades in the Netherlands, but the scale of injuries and damage on the night has spiralled in recent years.Last New Year's Eve, two people were killed and 1,162 people needed emergency treatment for a range of injuries including burns and eye damage.
New-year celebrations have become a byword for antisocial behaviour in many Dutch cities and public support for a ban has gradually changed the minds of politicians too. Three-quarters of the Dutch public now support a ban, according to a recent opinion poll.The centre-right liberal VVD party, which is part of the Dutch government, swung behind a ban at the end of March, followed by another coalition party, NSC.However, the two other ruling parties objected, arguing most of the problems stemmed from illegal rather than legally bought fireworks.Locally run firework displays could survive the ban, but details are yet to be agreed.The awkward compromise of delaying the ban until New Year's Eve 2026 has led to fears of a final night of legalised mayhem. Mirjam Bikker of the Christian Union party was concerned that next 31 December would end up as "yet another kind of Armageddon and everyone will go completely crazy and go off the rails one more time".It is not just that fireworks are routinely set off in the street in the Netherlands, but cars, scooters and buildings have been set alight and riots have broken out with fireworks thrown at emergency services. Last new year, 200 people were arrested and damage caused by fireworks was estimated at €16m ($17.5m; £13.7m).
Nineteen towns and cities imposed firework bans while many other areas created firework-free zones. But the bans were largely ignored and the mayor of Amsterdam said it was hopeless as long as the government did nothing to put an end to commercial sales.The Netherlands is not alone. Belgium and Germany have seen firework violence too.The head of the NPB Dutch police union, Nine Kooiman, said police felt as if they were working "in a war zone". A survey of union members suggested four out of 10 officers preferred not to work on New Year's Eve because of the severe safety risks. Although a range of Dutch groups have backed a ban, fireworks suppliers are seeking some €895m in compensation because of the stocks they have bought up for the next new year. The government puts the cost of compensation at between €100-150m if a ban comes in this year, but more like €50m if it is introduced in 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
12 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
NATO allies agree huge spending boost as US demands they are 'ready' for Russia
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded GDP members of NATO be 'combat-ready' or risk losing US support amid escalating security concerns over Russia's aggression NATO allies will increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has said. The American also demanded that members of the organisation be 'combat-ready' or risk losing US support amid escalating security concerns over Russia 's aggression. Speaking ahead of a NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels yesterday, Hegseth emphasised that the alliance must move beyond symbolic gestures. He said: 'The commitment is there. Five per cent on defence spending. When you consider the threats that we face, the urgency in the world, it's critical. We don't need more flags. We need more fighting formations. We don't need more conferences. We need more capabilities. Hard power.' The call for a sharp increase from the current NATO guideline of two per cent has gained support across Europe and Canada, but places pressure on countries like the UK. The government currently spends around two per cent of GDP on defence but faces growing demands to raise that figure to at least three per cent, or even 3.5 per cent, to maintain good relations with Washington. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has promised to raise spending to three per cent when economic conditions allow, though no timeline has been set. Dutch Prime Minister and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte echoed Hegseth's urgency. 'The expectation is that on the European side of NATO and the Canadian side of NATO, if we think that we can keep ourselves safe sticking with the two per cent, forget it,' he said. 'Yes, the next three to five years, but then we are in great difficulty. And the US rightly expects us to spend much more to defend ourselves with their help, but also to equalise, which is only fair with what the US is spending on defence.' Rutte also highlighted the financial challenge. He added: 'All these investments have to be financed.' NATO ministers were set to approve 'capability targets' - detailed goals for each of the 32 member nations to purchase priority weapons and equipment, including air defence systems, long-range missiles, artillery, drones, and strategic enablers like air-to-air refuelling and heavy transport. Each nation's plan remains classified. The targets stem from a 2023 NATO blueprint aimed at countering threats from Russia or other major adversaries. NATO plans to maintain up to 300,000 troops ready to deploy to the alliance's eastern flank within 30 days, though experts doubt the allies can yet muster such forces effectively. The member countries are assigned defensive roles across three zones: the Arctic and North Atlantic, central Europe north of the Alps, and southern Europe. The timeline to meet these capability targets is within five to ten years - a timeframe NATO believes necessary given Russia's ongoing military build-up, which could accelerate if Western sanctions ease or a peace deal ends the war in Ukraine. 'We are going to gather here again and say 'okay, we failed a bit,' and then maybe we start learning Russian?' Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovilė Šakalienė warned, highlighting fears of a premature Russian strike on NATO territory. Swedish Defence Minister Pål Jonson stressed the importance of the current moment: 'We also know that after an armistice or a peace agreement, of course, Russia is going to allocate more forces closer to our vicinity. Therefore, it's extremely important that the alliance use these couple of years now when Russia is still limited by its force posture in and around Ukraine.' The Netherlands, for example, is planning to increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans said the country expects to purchase more tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and long-range missile systems such as the US-made Patriot missiles capable of targeting aircraft, cruise missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles. The UK currently spends 2.3 per cent of GDP on defence and has committed to raising this to 2.5 per cent by 2027. The government has set an ambition to then increase it to three per cent by 2034. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that reaching three per cent of GDP by 2030 would cost the UK government an additional £17.3 billion. In the 2024/25 financial year, the UK spent £56.9 billion on defence, increasing to £59.8 billion in 2025/26 According to 2024 figures, Poland was the top military spender as a share of its economy for the second year running. It's forecast to spend 4.1 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) - the total value of goods and services produced. Estonia was in second place at 3.4 per cent with the US in third place at 3.4 per cent, which is about the same level as it has been spending for the last decade. The UK came ninth on the list with 2.3 per cent. The average for NATO members in Europe and Canada is estimated at 2.0 per cent. If the UK were to pay five per cent of its GDP to NATO, taxpayers would be hit with a £128 billion bill.
New Statesman
12 hours ago
- New Statesman
Europe's far-right paradox
Photo by Diego Radames/Anadolu via Getty Images A toxic dynamic centred on refugee policy is creating political instability across much of Europe. As established mainstream parties struggle to figure out how best to deal with the far right, they are succumbing to pressure to get tougher on asylum seekers and thus mainstreaming and normalising far-right rhetoric and policy. But whether they exclude those movements from government or seek to cooperate with them, it is becoming increasingly difficult to form stable governments in Europe. On 3 June, the Dutch government collapsed when Geert Wilders withdrew his far-right Freedom Party (PVV) from the four-party coalition just over a year after it was formed. After the election in November 2023 in which the PVV emerged as the biggest party in the Dutch parliament, it took six months to form a government that included the centre-right People's Party (VVD) and was led by Dick Schoof, a career civil servant. New elections will now be held, though the date has not yet been set. After the 2023 election, Wilders had promised 'the toughest asylum policy ever' and made sure that his party controlled the asylum ministry so that it could implement his radical ten-point plan. This included deploying the army at Dutch borders, turning away all new asylum seekers, deporting Syrians whose claims were already being processed, and rejecting EU quotas. But on 3 June, he declared that the new government had not gone far enough or quickly enough and pulled out. In the Netherlands, mainstream parties have long cooperated with the far right. As far back as 2010, the then-VVD leader Mark Rutte led a minority government that had a confidence-and-supply agreement with the PVV. This week's events illustrate the fragility of that approach. Wilders hopes his party will do even better in the new elections and that he will be able to become prime minister himself. Centrists, meanwhile, hope his move will backfire and that voters will punish him for his unreasonableness. In Germany, meanwhile, where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) became the second biggest party in the Bundestag after the election that took place in February, the mainstream parties have taken a different approach. Cooperation with the far right is much more of a taboo in Germany than in the Netherlands – there is a consensus around the idea that what are often called 'democratic forces' must maintain a Brandmauer, or firewall, to keep the far right away from power. The new chancellor Friedrich Merz has actually gone quite far in cooperating with them, by German standards at least. During the election campaign last year, he cooperated with the AfD to push an 'influx limitation bill' through the Bundestag. But as controversial as this was – it alienated the Social Democrats (SPD), with whom Merz knew he would likely have to cooperate after the election – it falls a long way short of what has happened in the Netherlands. It remains politically impossible for Germany's Christian Democrats to form a minority government dependent on AfD votes as Rutte did, let alone actually form a coalition with it. This meant that, after the election, Merz's only option was to form a grand coalition with the Social Democrats. (Some right-wing Christian Democrats, such as the historian Andreas Rödder, are beginning to argue that they need to break the taboo on cooperation with the AfD if only to give themselves other options and thus increase their power in negotiations with the SPD.) Yet despite this different approach, the political situation in Germany is now remarkably similar to that in the Netherlands. Like Wilders, Merz ran on a promise to get even tougher on asylum seekers – he promised a 'de-facto entry ban' that would have violated EU law. For all the obsessive focus on maintaining the Brandmauer, the boundaries between the centrists and the far right on refugee policy have long been blurred – in fact Wilders argues that Germany is already doing much of what he wants to do. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe However, while Merz and the Social Democrats had settled on a compromise on asylum policy – the coalition agreement promised a 'deportation offensive' but Merz was forced to dilute his promise of an entry ban – it could yet unravel. This week, a Berlin court ruled that it was unlawful for German border guards to push back three Somalis who had crossed the border from Poland and sought to claim asylum in Germany. In response, Merz seemed to suggest that he might be prepared to ignore the ruling. In doing so, Merz is threatening to abandon the compromise he reached with the SPD and, with an eye on the AfD, reverting to the approach he took during the election campaign. The Social Democrats, who have themselves moved to the right on refugee policy but stopped short of rejecting German court rulings and EU law, have insisted that the government must adhere to the rule of law – after all, this, Germany's 'democratic forces' have always insisted, is what differentiates them from 'populist' parties like the AfD. It is unlikely that the coalition will collapse over this issue. But that is itself largely because the Christian Democrats and SPD fear that if there were new elections, as there will now be in the Netherlands, the AfD would do even better than it did in February. The problem, not just in Germany but also elsewhere in Europe, is that incoherent coalitions of centrist parties formed only to keep the far right out of power also tend to strengthen the far right. [See also: Labour's muddled message] Related
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Britain bled for America after 9/11 - but Trump still calls us NATO freeloaders
Once again, NATO's warning sirens are blaring but this time they're being sounded not just by a hawkish US defence secretary, but by Donald Trump's hand-picked megaphone. Pete Hegseth, a Fox News fixture turned Pentagon mouthpiece, has marched into Brussels and told Europe to get its act together. His demand? NATO allies must ramp up defence spending to five per cent of GDP or risk losing American support. It's a steep ask, but let's be honest: this isn't coming from Hegseth alone. He's simply parroting the orders of his puppetmaster back in Washington. Trump has spent years bellyaching that Europe doesn't pull its weight, pushing the fiction that the United States carries the whole NATO alliance like a single parent doing all the chores. Hegseth is now trying to turn that narrative into policy. Never mind that the only time NATO's mutual defence clause, Article 5, has ever been invoked was to defend the United States. After the horrors of 9/11, it was Britain, France, Canada and others who answered the call and bled alongside American forces in Afghanistan. We didn't hesitate. We didn't quibble. We showed up. But Trump? He recently claimed he doesn't believe NATO allies would come to America's defence if the roles were reversed. It wasn't just insulting, it was revisionist nonsense. Trump has never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. And now, with his second term, he's dusted off the old playbook: threatened the allies, demanded more cash, and wrapped it all in a red-white-and-blue flag of grievance. Hegseth, speaking ahead of a NATO defence ministers meeting, didn't bother with diplomacy. 'The commitment is there. Five per cent on defence spending,' he said. 'We don't need more flags. We need more fighting formations… hard power.' In other words, stop talking and start paying up or else. NATO's new Secretary-General, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, echoed the urgency. He made it plain: sticking to the current two per cent spending target won't cut it anymore. 'Forget it,' he said bluntly. In the face of Russia's aggression, he added, Europe must 'equalise' with the US. And what of Britain? We're currently hovering at just over two per cent - enough to technically meet the old NATO target, but nowhere near the five per cent being floated now. Downing Street is under pressure to lift that figure to 3.5 per cent to avoid falling out with the Trump White House. Sir Keir Starmer has promised to raise defence spending to three per cent when economic conditions allow, which, for those in the States, has been taken as political code for 'don't hold your breath.' Meanwhile, NATO wants to have 300,000 troops ready to deploy to the eastern flank within 30 days. Experts say we're nowhere close. Russia isn't waiting around, and if we don't catch up, we'll be caught out. Let's not kid ourselves. These new capability targets aren't just about tanks and missiles, they're about logistics, transport, refuelling, and the infrastructure needed to move large armies quickly. All of it costs serious money. The uncomfortable truth is this: for too long, Britain and Europe have been skating by on goodwill, political promises, and Washington's indulgence. That indulgence may soon run dry, and we'll only have ourselves to blame. It's time to stop playing catch-up, stop relying on American muscle, and start taking responsibility for our own defence. If we want to remain a serious player on the world stage, we need to start acting like one before Trump throws his NATO dummy out of the pram once and for all.
