The Netherlands is traditionally one of America's staunchest allies. Atlanticism runs deep.
But what does the Dutch population think of today's transatlantic relations, European strategic autonomy, and a 'Cold War' with China?
We took the Dutch pulse. (N = 23.000)
THREAD /1
The Dutch are pivoting to 'more Europe'.
72% of the Dutch population support deeper cooperation with France & Germany, in light of Brexit and Trump's America First policies.
/2
Interestingly, even among the Eurosceptics (those that support PVV, Forum, SGP), more people support deeper cooperation with Berlin & Paris, then do not.
/3
On a side-note: those that do not support more cooperation with Germany/ France, also tend to take a negative view of migration and want a military that can do everything by itself. We call them the "Sovereignists".
In NL, there is a large majority of "Europeanists".
/4
So why this turn to Europe? And does it have something to do with views of the US?
Well, the Dutch population doesn't think it can count on the US anymore.
79% of cloggies think it is likely/ very likely that, within 5 years, the US will reduce its protection of Europe.
/5
And in terms of Dutch threat perceptions, the United States only scores marginally better than China or Russia.
29% see US as a threat, as opposed to China (35%) and Russia (36%).
/6
This might look bad... and it kinda is.
We also asked what they think of a 'new Cold War' between the US and China:
28% would take sides with the US,
only 4% would back China.
(I read this as support for the US-EU dialogue on China)
But 60% want neutrality.
/7
Also, the younger generation is more in favour of neutrality (and also see the US as more of a threat) than the older generation.
/8
If you support transatlantic cooperation - like I do - there is only 1 conclusion to draw from this survey of the Dutch: US-Europe ties are in desperate need of refurbishment.
We have a new Dutch 🇳🇱 coalition agreement!
Here are some highlights with an international/ EU dimension:
Defence
- Continued military, political & financial support for #Ukraine
- Legally enshrine 2% defence spending
- Support for NL & European defence industry
/1
Migration
- NL will seek opt-out for (parts of) European asylum/migration policy, and will discuss setting up mini-Schengen’s in times of crisis
- NL will work with EU members to externalise migration policy to 3rd countries
/2
Migration (cont'd)
- NL will seek limits to freedom of movement for new EU members (i.e. same thing that happened in 2004)
- Various measures to dissuade migration, including fewer international students in Bachelors programmes, except technical studies
/3
1) EU's timing was totally off, at least if it wanted a positive response frm London. Perhaps BXL's timing had more to do w VDL extending a hand to the UK at the end of her term. In any case it had little to do with political realities in London
/1
This suggests either VDL came up with the idea herself, or she was poorly advised by @PedroSerranoEU's team in London (which I don’t believe as they are highly competent)
Is there another option?
/2
@PedroSerranoEU .@anandMenon1 suggests here that the Commission wanted to pre-empt bilateral efforts by individual member-states
Plausible. Tho I haven’t heard many Europeans talk about bilateral deals with the UK on visas and youth mobility (aside from the French)
/3 theguardian.com/politics/2024/…
"As a result of the staggering implementation failures of the past six years, we have so far borne the costs of leaving the EU - the majority of which were the result of a choice by vindictive European protectionists...
/2
"...rather than the necessary outcome of leaving - while only enjoying a small fraction of the possible benefits."
Interesting perspective: trade barriers r blamed on 'European protectionists' instead of the logical outcome of leaving an internal market. But OK.
Or rather, I read @stephenfry’s highly enjoyable version “Troy”
Here are a couple of points with some relevance to today’s war in #Ukraine
A short 🧵(with some classical art)
/1
Who is to blame for the war, and at what point did it become inevitable?
Was it the Trojan abduction of Helen, the judgement of Paris, the lottery Odysseus organised, Paris’ and Antimachus' undermining of the Greek ultimatum?...
/2
Or was it the challenge Troy presented to Agamemnon’s hegemony as “king of men”....
... or the Greek pursuit of Troy’s spoils?
In the case of Russia vs Ukraine, we also see multiple reasons being debated, some more realistic than others.
If the West doesn’t want to get directly involved in Ukraine, it has two options:
-Arm Ukraine
-Use economic tools of coercion (sanctions)
We are doing the first. But the second remains tricky.
Some thoughts on economic sanctions.
A thread. 🧵
/1
If you are serious about using sanctions as a tool, you also accept harming your own economy.
Imposing sanctions ALWAYS means striking a balance between the amount of economic pain you are willing to absorb versus the amount of economic pain you can inflict on the other.
/2
Examples.
Personal sanctions are relatively painless; their impact is also limited.
Prohibiting sales of luxury goods is bad for oligarchs and bad for LVMH, but probably won’t lead to a change in behaviour either.