According to the CDA fraction leader the crisis is of such a magnitude that parties need to think about a common strategy to fight it. He hopes that parties against the support package for Greece, such as PVV and [the Socialist Party], have the courage to make a different choice, so as to avoid 'going into the abyss of a crisis'. (...)The Dutch political establishment likes to predict hellfire and brimstone, much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as soon as there's talk of blocking further financial 'help', even of leaving the eurozone all together and breaking up that infernal social-democrat project we know as the EUnion. And none likes to do more so as the CDA.
On Monday Van Haersma Buma called for a more forceful economic governance of Europe, by the means of a European budget authority. 'We must break through the anti-European sentiment', he said.
One day later, the French president Nicoals Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel came with a proposal of a euro-government, with the aim of a centrally determined economic policy within the euro-zone.
This is to be expected. Of all the political parties in the Netherlands, the CDA has invested the most political capital in the EUnion. Remember it was the CDA, then led by Jan-Peter Balkendende, who shovelled the outcome of the referendum on the 'European constitution' under the rug, and manipulated the political process so as to avoid another referendum on
What is missing from the remarks by van Haersma Buma is any realization that he is asking for support to the very institution that caused the crisis to begin with. The current crisis is not 'just' an economic crisis. The slump in the economy (whether a double-dip recession or a full-blown Depression) laid bare the deeper problems at the heart of the euro and the EUnion.
It was the euro that led to various bubbles, like the real-estate bubbles in Ireland and Spain. And it was the lack-lustre discipline of the EUnion, that let Greece (and Italy, and let us not forget France and Germany, who were allowed to break the 'sacrosanct' Stability-pact) run roughshod over any and all principles of financial prudence. In return the EUnion is doing its level best to force the countries that are disciplined enough to bail out the financially irresponsible.
The EUnion just does not work. It does not deliver the economic prosperity it promised. Economic growth targets have never been met within the Euro-zone. Freedom is less, not more, in EUnion member countries. Democracy is withering on the vine and soon to be pronounced officially dead or live on as an empty slogan-filler. The only thing that has grown and prospered is the Brussels monster with its 170,000 jobsworths drinking, dining and living on our money.
And now that a crisis is upon us, a crisis that lays bare the vacuousness and unreality of the basic tenets underlying the EUnion project, we are expected to throw money at the problem until it goes away. That is what van Haersma Buma and the CDA are asking.
But the problem will not go away. The problem is the EUnion. If a certain something is responsible for a crisis, how is more of that certain something going to solve it? It does not make sense. That we are called to support it by the CDA seems to be the more irresponsible position. Especially since to date no-one has made any honest cost-benefit analysis of leaving the euro-zone versus staying in it.
Yes, we know that leaving the euro-zone will carry its own price. Liberty never comes cheap. But is that price really that much steeper then the price we will pay for the mad dash Merkel, Sarkozy and the rest of that merry band of charlatans are making with our money? If you read Dutch, you will find a post on DDS entitled Money for nothing (and your slaves for free) (NL). In it the author analyses what the current plans for central economic governance in the euro-zone would mean for the Netherlands. The short answer is: Bankruptcy.
So, is the resistance against further financial aid to Greece irresponsible? Or is your attempt to bankrupt your own country, one which you swore an oath to serve, your attempt to push into poverty and servitude the people you claim to represent, is that maybe just a teensy bit more irresponsible?
[UPDATE001] It seems that the Dutch as a whole know what is, and what is not, irresponsible. The latest poll shows the PVV (29) just one seat junior to the VVD (30 seats), the largest party in Second Chamber. Snouck has the goods. The CDA, third coalition partner in the Danish construction, lags behind with a paltry 14 seats. Talk about trying on too large a pair of trousers, Sybrand.