Coverage of the Dutch elections last week is clear evidence that in the pro-Brexit media a toxic combination of ignorant hostility and selective perception continues to inform views about Europe. This attitude has led Britain to leave an organisation it never bothered to understand, in the hope of a future it did not examine. It is now leading Britain to fundamentally misunderstand the countries it depends on for a reasonable Brexit deal.
More than 300 foreign journalists descended on the Netherlands in the weeks and months before the elections. Many seemed to have come on the promise that after Trump and Brexit another domino would fall to populism because the staunchly anti-Islam, anti-EU and anti-immigration PVV party of Geert Wilders was either leading in the polls or getting stronger and stronger. So those foreign journalists set out to interview one Wilders voter after another, and guess what? They all said that Wilders was going to do really, really, really well and that Brexit is a dream for every sane Dutch citizen.
How ignorant can you be? A government led by Wilders delivering a referendum on the EU was never, ever on the cards. Yes, Wilders had led the polls for a brief period over the winter months. But what Brexit media either did not know or chose not to share with their readers is that this means something very different in a system of proportional representation. “Leading the polls” in America’s or Britain’s first-past-the-post system means “the country’s next leader”. In the Netherlands, however, leading the polls means nothing if no other party wants to govern with you. Which is the case with Wilders, who never got past 25% of the vote in any poll.
One solution, then, was for Brexit media to claim that support for Wilders is growing. That sounds ominous and ties nicely into the domino narrative. Too bad it is nonsense. The fact is that Wilders scored a far bigger victory in 2010 with 24 seats. He then fell back to 15 in the 2012 elections, to rebound to 20 seats last Wednesday. That is a yo-yo, not a domino.
Wilders is an important factor in Dutch politics but with barely 14% of the vote he is nothing more than that. The real story last week in the Netherlands was the historic collapse of the Dutch equivalent of the Labour party – one of the two pillars of the postwar consensus. The other story was the spectacular gains for two parties that are unashamedly pro-EU: the Democrats 66 and the Greens. So much for the collapse in support for the “broken, dying EU project” that the Daily Mail likes to talk about.
The fact of the matter is that there is no country in Europe where a party or parties demanding departure from the EU are anywhere near a majority. Yes, Marine Le Pen may be leading some polls in France but what Brexit media either do not know or choose not to highlight is that this is because Le Pen’s opponents are divided. In the case of a runoff between Le Pen and another candidate – which seems the most likely scenario – not a single poll predicts a Le Pen win.
The charitable view is that it is only natural for Brexit media to hope for a “Nexit” since they want to see the EU collapse. It is also understandable if remain-leaning journalists hope for a Nexit – at least then Britain could be seen as a pioneer, and lessen its isolation. Yet perhaps it is time for Britain to take a look at itself.
For its lead story on the Dutch elections the Sun went so far as to claim in its headline that Wilders has brought the Netherlands “to the brink of civil war”. That is quite a statement, especially since the one civil war in western Europe in the past quarter-century was in Northern Ireland. That ended with the Good Friday agreement, which is now in tatters thanks to Brexit. As for the EU being at breaking point … If there is a union in Europe close to breaking, it is not the EU but the United Kingdom now that Nicola Sturgeon has announced she is seeking a fresh independence referendum in Scotland.
Britain produces some of the finest journalism in the world, and reports in the Economist and the Financial Times by Dutch-speaking reporters have been throwing cold water on Nexit alarmism for months. But those publications are interested in the truth, whereas the billionaire-owned Brexit press merely seeks out facts that can be shoehorned into whatever narrative their owner has told them to spin.
It is therefore as ironic as it was predictable that those very same Brexit media have failed to see the good news that this Dutch election holds for their camp. Wilders has been claiming that Brexit will be a success story, and that the Netherlands must follow as soon as possible. The more Wilders’ support grew, the bigger the necessity for the next Dutch government to prove him wrong by turning Brexit into a disaster for the UK. This pressure has now markedly decreased with Wilders’ poor showing at the polls.
Alas, for Brexit media to see this simple fact would require them to do something that is still utter heresy in their circles: recognise that in the coming negotiations Britain holds almost no cards and will be dependent on the goodwill of EU countries for a reasonable post-Brexit deal.