Nice article, as usual, but defining the EU as a maker and enforcer of regulations is really missing the point. Well, a LOT of points. Think of the four freedoms, the rebuilding of destroyed economies after WWII, Schengen, common immigration policies, cultural activities, the Euro, scientific cooperation, health cooperation etc etc etc. Not to mention the intellectual and emotional dimensions of founding and expanding the EU after the fall of Communism.
I agree with you. What I mean to say more precisely is that when people have a problem with the EU, it’s usually about what they perceive as over-reaching regulation. Like with Brexit, or the Dutch around nitrogen. With American big tech coming at us so aggressively, it’s a good opportunity for the EU to show the positive side of regulation, and even how regulation can be a reflection of European values.
From what I heard, the polluting farmers were being offered a pretty nice buy out but didn't want to change anything. If the alternative is deadly (to natural areas and climate) pollution, then, like in the US, you end up with rule by the greedy and ignorant that will kill off everybody, don't you? I only have a general knowledge of the stikstof issue, but it sounded like a good, if difficult, compromise had been reached until the group wanting nothing to change had a big tantrum (that was not met with anywhere near the same police enforcement as that afforded the group trying to stop global warming). What other options are there? The current government has no solution I think. Or was the problem a compromised Rutte adminitration and skillfull framing of issues by the BBB/PVV? Thank you for great info.
I think two things complicate the nitrogen issue. One, for years Dutch farms have been encouraged through government subsidies and initiatives to expand into “mega farms” to maximize profit. They retrofitted farms, took on debt, etc. When the government turned around and said they had to reduce their stocks, they felt understandably betrayed, and that this was presented as simply what we must do to follow EU orders, it turned people against the EU - they don’t want Brussels telling them what to do. Second, way more Dutch people identify with the “heartland” and agriculture than I think anyone understood before all this happened. It was perceived as Brussels messing with our farmers, even if the EU rules are correct from an environmental perspective, which tapped into the bigger issues of national identity and sovereignty—which the BBB and PVV swept in and capitalized on.
Nice article, as usual, but defining the EU as a maker and enforcer of regulations is really missing the point. Well, a LOT of points. Think of the four freedoms, the rebuilding of destroyed economies after WWII, Schengen, common immigration policies, cultural activities, the Euro, scientific cooperation, health cooperation etc etc etc. Not to mention the intellectual and emotional dimensions of founding and expanding the EU after the fall of Communism.
I agree with you. What I mean to say more precisely is that when people have a problem with the EU, it’s usually about what they perceive as over-reaching regulation. Like with Brexit, or the Dutch around nitrogen. With American big tech coming at us so aggressively, it’s a good opportunity for the EU to show the positive side of regulation, and even how regulation can be a reflection of European values.
From what I heard, the polluting farmers were being offered a pretty nice buy out but didn't want to change anything. If the alternative is deadly (to natural areas and climate) pollution, then, like in the US, you end up with rule by the greedy and ignorant that will kill off everybody, don't you? I only have a general knowledge of the stikstof issue, but it sounded like a good, if difficult, compromise had been reached until the group wanting nothing to change had a big tantrum (that was not met with anywhere near the same police enforcement as that afforded the group trying to stop global warming). What other options are there? The current government has no solution I think. Or was the problem a compromised Rutte adminitration and skillfull framing of issues by the BBB/PVV? Thank you for great info.
I think two things complicate the nitrogen issue. One, for years Dutch farms have been encouraged through government subsidies and initiatives to expand into “mega farms” to maximize profit. They retrofitted farms, took on debt, etc. When the government turned around and said they had to reduce their stocks, they felt understandably betrayed, and that this was presented as simply what we must do to follow EU orders, it turned people against the EU - they don’t want Brussels telling them what to do. Second, way more Dutch people identify with the “heartland” and agriculture than I think anyone understood before all this happened. It was perceived as Brussels messing with our farmers, even if the EU rules are correct from an environmental perspective, which tapped into the bigger issues of national identity and sovereignty—which the BBB and PVV swept in and capitalized on.