Populist Wilders breaks Dutch coalition to push immigration agenda in elections
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders toppled the ruling coalition on Tuesday, gambling that a snap election focused on immigration will bring victory at the polls and secure his decades-old ambition of holding the highest political office.
"We had agreed that the Netherlands would become the strictest (on immigration) in Europe, but we're trailing somewhere near the bottom," he told journalists, speaking after his Freedom Party (PVV) ditched Prime Minister Dick Schoof's coalition, just weeks before a major NATO summit in The Hague.
"I intend to become the next prime minister. I am going to make the PVV bigger than ever."
Some analysts said that despite a European shift to the right as seen in Poland with the election on Sunday of a conservative nationalist as president, his plan could still backfire.
Polls indicate declining popularity for the PVV since it joined the government. Even if it remains the largest party, fashioning a coalition will be difficult in a deeply polarised nation. Opposition parties rule out working with Wilders and his sudden move on Tuesday angered and baffled political partners.
Wilders, the longest serving Dutch lawmaker, gradually climbed to power after entering parliament in 1998, running on an anti-Islam platform that called for zero immigration and expelling asylum seekers.
He tapped concerns of voters disillusioned with established politics and concerns about housing costs and healthcare that he has associated with immigration.
His euroseceptic Freedom Party joined a power-sharing, right-wing coalition in 2024 after a record win in general elections, but Wilders said the government failed to make good on promises to clamp down on immigration.
Immigration has slowed significantly since a peak in 2022. The Netherlands received almost two first-time asylum applications per 1,000 inhabitants in 2024, slightly below the European Union average, according to Eurostat data.
Ten EU countries had a higher relative number of asylum seekers last year, including neighbouring Germany and Belgium.
Junior coalition government members, including the conservative VVD party of ex-prime minister Mark Rutte, were reluctant to embrace some of Wilders' harshest ideas, including closing the borders to asylum seekers, returning Syrian refugees and closing asylum shelters.
Those proposals also flew in the face of European Union obligations and a Dutch humanitarian tradition since World War Two of taking in people fleeing conflict.
Focusing attention on immigration is a critical electoral strategy for the PVV, said Simon Otjes, assistant professor for Dutch politics at Leiden University.
"Wilders is trying to return the focus back to immigration in the hopes that that will be the main theme in the coming elections," Otjes said. "A lot can happen in the next six months and it will be very unpredictable."
Political ambition has not been enough to secure Wilders the top job, even after winning multiple elections. He had to give up his claim to the top job last year to strike a coalition deal with three other conservative parties.
Wilders' anti-Islam rhetoric has prompted death threats and travel bans to Muslim nations that trade with the Netherlands.
His 17-minute film "Fitna" enraged the Muslim world in 2008 for linking Koranic verses with footage of terrorist attacks.
He was convicted of discrimination after he insulted Moroccans at a campaign rally in 2014.
Wilders also called the prophet Mohammad a "paedophile", Islam a "fascist ideology" and "backward religion", and suggested banning of mosques, headscarves and the Koran.
The central question now will be whether Wilders can turn a future election into a referendum on immigration policy that effectively undercuts his opponents, said Joep van Lit, political researcher at Radboud University in Nijmegen.
"But it's hard to tell how voters will react."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
13 minutes ago
- American Press
Trump suggests he'll know if Putin wants a peace deal with Ukraine soon into their meeting
President Donald Trump said Monday that he expected to determine mere moments into his meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin this week whether it would be possible to work out a deal to halt the war in Ukraine. 'At the end of that meeting, probably the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made,' Trump said at a White House press conference that he called to announce plans for a federal takeover of Washington's police force to help combat crime. He said he thought Friday's sitdown with Putin in Alaska would be 'really a feel-out meeting.' Trump added that 'it'll be good, but it might be bad' and predicted he may say, 'lots of luck, keep fighting. Or I may say, we can make a deal.' Putin wants to lock in Russia's gains since invading Ukraine in February 2022 as Trump presses for a ceasefire that has remained out of reach. Trump's eagerness to reach a deal has raised fears in Ukraine and Europe about such an agreement favoring Russia, without sufficient input from Ukraine. Trump has alternately harshly criticized both leaders after promising — and so far failing — to swiftly end the conflict. The Trump-Putin meeting so far isn't going to include Zelenskyy Trump on Monday ducked repeated chances to say that he would push for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to take part in his discussions with Putin, and was especially dismissive of Zelenskyy and his need to be part of an effort to seek peace. He said the Ukrainian president had been to 'a lot of meetings' without managing to halt a war that Russia started. Trump also noted that Zelenskyy had been in power for the duration of the war and said 'nothing happened' during that time. He contrasted that with Putin, who has wielded power in Russia for decades. Trump said that, after his meeting with Putin, 'The next meeting will be with Zelenskyy and Putin' but it could also be a meeting with 'Putin and Zelenskyy and me.' European allies have pushed for Ukraine's involvement, fearful that discussions could otherwise favor Moscow. To that point, Trump said he would call Zelenskyy and European leaders after his discussion with Putin to 'tell them what kind of a deal — I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal.' Trump spent the early part of his administration decrying Zelenskyy, even suggesting he was a dictator because his country has not held elections during the war. Zelenskyy was hounded out of the Oval Office in February after Trump and Vice President JD Vance suggested he hadn't been grateful enough for U.S. support. Trump's up and down relations with Putin More recently, Trump has expressed frustration with Putin that Russia hasn't appeared to take a push for a ceasefire more seriously, and softened his tone toward Zelenskyy. His comments Monday suggested he might have had another change of heart. 'President Putin invited me to get involved,' Trump said. He noted that he thought it was 'very respectful' that Putin is coming to the U.S. for Friday's meeting, instead of insisting that Trump go to Russia. 'I'd like to see a ceasefire. I'd like to see the best deal that can be made for both parties,' Trump said. The president repeated that any major agreement could involve land swaps, without elaborating. He had threatened Moscow with more economic sanctions if more isn't done to work toward a ceasefire, but suggested Monday that, should Friday's meeting be successful, he could see a day when the U.S. and Russia normalize trade relations. Putin is expected to be unwavering in his demands to keep all the territory his forces now occupy and to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, with the long-term aim of returning it to Moscow's sphere of influence. Zelenskyy insists he will never consent to any formal Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory or give up a bid for NATO membership. Putin believes he has the advantage on the ground as Ukrainian forces struggle to hold back Russian advances along the 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front. On the front lines, few Ukrainian soldiers believe there's an end in sight to the war.
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump pushes Ukraine to agree to 'land swap' with Russia ahead of Putin summit
President Donald Trump laid out expectations for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where he said he hoped to 'feel out' the leader's willingness to end the Ukraine war. WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump again raised the idea of a "land swap" that would see Ukraine give up territory to Russia after his previous proposal drew pushback from European leaders and was rejected by Ukraine's president. Trump said he was "a little bothered" by Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's assertion over the weekend that it would violate his country's constitution to cede territory to Moscow that Russia captured in its unprovoked invasion. "He's got approval to go into a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap? Because there'll be some landswapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody," Trump told reporters during an Aug. 11 news conference. He said some of the moves will be good for Ukraine – but some will be bad. "It's very complex, because you have lines that are very uneven," Trump declared. "There will be some swapping. They will be some changes in land, and the word that they will use is, they make changes. We're going to change the lines, the battlelines." Trump made the comments as he laid out his expectations for a summit this week with Vladimir Putin, where he said he hoped to "feel out" the Russian leader's willingness to reach an agreement to end the war. The conflict began in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia currently controls roughly 20% of Ukraine. The administration has not shared additional details on the format for the Trump's summit with Putin beyond the fact that it's schedule for Aug. 15 in Alaska, a territory the United States purchased from Russia in 1867. "This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit. And President Putin invited me to get involved," Trump told reporters. Trump said he planned to call Zelenskyy, who is not expected to attend, and European leaders immediately after the meeting and tell them what Putin offered. "I'm not going to make a deal. It's not up to me to make a deal," Trump declared. Trump says he'll push Putin to end Ukraine war The sanctions that Trump said he'd be putting on Putin if a deal was not reached by Aug. 8 also appeared to be on hold on as the leaders prepared for their in-person meeting. Trump made an example out of India, hiking tariffs on the country's products to 50% for buying Russian oil, ahead of the sanctions deadline. Trump acknowledged at a news conference that he's been disappointed by Putin in the past but said he feels obligated to try to solve the war. The president said he thought it was "respectful" of Putin to come to the United States rather than holding the summit in Russia or another country. "I think we'll have constructive conversations," Trump said. Trump suggested that the simple act of confronting Putin to his face could persuade the Russian leader, repeating claims that the war wouldn't have started if he were president when it began. "I'm going in to speak to Vladimir Putin, and I'm going to be telling him, 'you've got to end this war. You've got to end it,'" Trump said. "He wasn't going to mess with me. This war would have never happened." Alluding to previous claims that the Ukrane could have prevented Putin from invading, Trump said: "I get along with Zelenskyy, but you know I disagree with what he's done, very, very severely disagree. This is a war that should have never happened, wouldn't have happened." Trump said he would like Putin and Zelenskyy to meet next, possibly with him. Yet, he also said he could walk away from the war after his talk with Putin if he believes there's no hope for a settlement. "I'm going to go and see the parameters. Now I may leave, and say, good luck and that will be the end, I may say, this is not going to be settled,'" Trump said. Trump said during an Aug. 8 White House event that "some swapping of territories" would be taking place. "We're looking at swapping. We're going to get some back," he said. Zelenskyy said in a thread on X the following day that the war can't be ended without Ukraine's approval: "The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question already is in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will deviate from this—and no one will be able to. Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier."
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How much will Gaza occupation cost Israel? Expert weighs in
Professor Elise Brezis estimates Gaza's annual food supply costs at 3.4 billion shekels, highlighting the challenges of feeding its 2 million residents if Israel assumes control. The annual cost of feeding the 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip is estimated at 3.4 billion shekels, Professor Elise Brezis , Chair of the Israeli Macroeconomics Forum and a faculty member at Bar-Ilan University, told N12 on Sunday. Brezis argued that the current figures being circulated about Gaza's food needs are inaccurate, as they are viewed through a Western lens. "It's like asking someone living in Mea She'arim how much it costs them to live and then giving them the figure for Tel Aviv," Brezis says. In her opinion, the cost of food in Gaza should be compared to countries such as Burkina Faso and Congo, not European nations. "You can't compare the cost of living in Gaza to a country where people dine at restaurants, buy groceries at supermarkets, and purchase shoes. The lifestyle in Gaza is more akin to that of Africa," she continues. Brezis argued that when comparing Gaza to countries like Burundi, the cost of feeding Gaza's population drops to 2 billion shekels. "If you keep throwing European food at them from planes, it will clearly cost more, but that would be a mistake," Brezis explained. She points to wartime African countries where locals survive by growing their own food as a more accurate comparison. In an interview with Professor Brezis, N12 attempted to estimate the economic cost of an Israeli occupation of Gaza. Despite recent focus on food supply issues, Brezis stressed that this represented the least expensive aspect of the process. "The real reason we won't be able to survive [in a situation of control over Gaza] is the price inside the country: 350,000 reserve soldiers. This was feasible in the early days after October 7. We're two years after that now," she said. 'If we're talking about two weeks or a month, we might somehow survive that. But if we're talking about a year, we can't afford it. The security costs would rise to 50 billion shekels per year,' she estimated. These figures also include the costs of recruiting reserves and armaments. Additionally, she highlighted the long-term economic impact of massive reserve mobilization: 'They aren't working, they aren't learning. These are the young people who represent the next generation of our human capital. The problem isn't how much Gaza will cost us, it's how much the war will cost us.' Brezis noted that even after occupying the strip, security expenses will remain high. "The military will manage the strip. It will stay the same. You won't send a tax clerk; you'll send a soldier." Additional factors increase incurred cost of Israeli occupation in Gaza Other estimates point to similar costs. A study by Ofer Guterman from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), published last April, suggested that maintaining a military occupation of Gaza could cost 25-30 billion shekels annually. Approximately 20 billion of this would go towards military operations, including reserve days. The additional 5-10 billion shekels would be allocated to running a civil administration mechanism and providing minimal civil services to Gaza's residents. Guterman noted that prior to Israel's 2005 disengagement, a significant portion of the funding for civil administration came from the profits and taxes generated by Gaza's economy. However, in the current situation of destruction in Gaza, this source of income is no longer available, significantly raising the cost for Israel. 'You need a bureaucratic system, and that has a price,' Brezis said. 'In the '70s and '80s, Israel placed civil servants there because it wasn't dangerous. Today, they'll place military personnel as civil servants, so we won't be able to reduce much from the reserve mobilization.' As someone whose research focuses on development, Brezis also offered suggestions for severing the link between Hamas and Gaza's population. The key, she asserted, lies in addressing the high percentage of youth in Gaza, an issue she refers to as the "youth bulge." "Development and demographic studies show that in places where the fertility rate exceeds four children per woman and youth constitute 30%-50% of the population, the likelihood of war is 80%. In contrast, in countries with a fertility rate of two children per woman and youth making up 20%, the likelihood of war drops to 5%-8%," she explained. "If we don't address this, how can we discuss Gaza? There, over 40% of the population is youth, and this helps explain why Hamas took control." According to Brezis , this age group is particularly vulnerable. "Hormones are raging," she noted, making young people in Gaza susceptible to recruitment by groups like Hamas or other terror or criminal organizations. She argued that Israel must address the population growth rate in Gaza to solve the attraction of such groups. A policy that encourages reducing birth rates, she suggested, is what helped Japan make an economic leap after World War II, and also helped Qatar reduce its birth rate from seven children per woman in the 1950s to fewer than two today. "The UN deliberately avoided addressing the population growth rate, silencing groups that called for it," she accused. The solution, she argued, lies in limiting state aid to families with fewer children. "In every country with more than four children per family, there is a 'Hamasland,'" she concludes. Sign in to access your portfolio
