Wilders’ speech in Hungary does not bode well for NSC and VVD: PVV leader takes all the space he gets

Geert Wilders immediately announced during his speech at the radical right CPAC meeting in Budapest on Friday that he was not going to say anything that would ‘kill’ the formation in the Netherlands. He seems to have succeeded in that aim. His intended coalition partners VVD, NSC and BBB have not yet been heard, probably in the hope that Wilders’ Hungarian trip would quickly fade into the background.

That hope has proven to be in vain. GroenLinks-PvdA leader Jesse Klaver called the PVV leader’s actions ‘completely inappropriate’ and ‘shameful’. Deputy D66 faction leader Jan Paternotte joined the talk show on Friday On 1 to explain that the speech was anything but normal.

There were plenty of arguments for this. Wilders labeled the media, academics and the ‘left-wing elite’ – to which he will include Klaver and Paternotte – as ‘a threat from within’ in his English-language speech. He also spoke in apocalyptic terms about the danger of mass immigration – ‘particularly of young, single men from Africa and Asia’.

According to Wilders, this migration has made European residential areas ‘almost no-go zones, areas where our women and daughters are no longer safe and where the Judeo-Christian culture has completely disappeared’. At another point, Wilders said that mass immigration has led to the ‘dilution’ – diluting in English – of European Judeo-Christian culture.

Master in searching for boundaries

When Thierry Baudet spoke years ago about ‘the homeopathic dilution of the Dutch population’, a storm of criticism arose and the Forum leader was accused of racism and Nazi ideas. It is not entirely inexplicable that VVD and NSC opted for silence after Wilders’ Hungary trip. During his tolerating role in Rutte I (2010-2012), the PVV leader already showed himself to be a master at constantly pushing the boundaries. According to the opposition, he always exceeded the mark, but according to the coalition, he often just missed it. This time too, it will not be clear to everyone that Wilders has gone too far.

Anyone who is sympathetic to the PVV can conclude that Wilders speaks about the dilution of a culture and not of a people, as Baudet did. And Wilders has often spoken in the past about the left-wing elites and the danger of mass immigration.

For example, he proclaimed in 2011 that ‘multiculturalist elites throughout Europe are fighting a total war against their populations, with the aim of continuing mass immigration, ultimately resulting in Eurabia’. Who can be surprised by what Wilders said in Hungary?, supporters will wonder.

Shifting political standards

Yet Wilders’ performance in Hungary also shows how much political standards have shifted in recent months. In December, the PVV leader canceled a planned appearance at a conference of the right-wing populist Lega Nord in Florence. The then fledgling formation was given as the reason. Wilders now apparently estimates that Dilan Yesilgöz (VVD) and Pieter Omtzigt (NSC) will no longer leave the table so quickly after months of negotiations.

A significant part of the VVD and NSC supporters still sees a collaboration with the PVV. Those voters will probably find it difficult to understand if Yesilgöz and Omtzigt still call the formation into question six months after the elections because of a speech that essentially does not differ from previous speeches by Wilders.

Uncomfortable silence

The awkward silence of VVD and NSC makes it clear how difficult a possible collaboration with Wilders will be for those parties in the coming years. The dynamics of last Friday will continue to repeat themselves, just as before during Rutte I.

Wilders says something that goes against the values ​​of the government partners VVD and NSC and then the opposition asks for clarification: do you accept this? Once something has been tacitly accepted, it becomes more difficult to explain and then draw a line at a later time. Opponents of the PVV warn that this poses the danger of normalizing what they consider to be extreme ideas.

Yesilgöz and Omtzigt cannot count on leniency from the opposition. The role of anti-Wilders party is too lucrative from an electoral perspective for that. Between 2010 and 2012, Rutte begged the opposition in vain not to respond ‘to every piece of red meat that Wilders throws into the arena’, also because this elevates the PVV leader to the center of the political debate.

The outcome is known. D66 was rewarded for its tough opposition to Wilders. The image of the CDA, of which Omtzigt was a member, was irreparably tarnished by the compromises with Wilders. The VVD survived, but mainly because Rutte, as the new, eloquent prime minister, was at the height of his popularity at the time.

Collaboration as a great test

Everything indicates that a possible collaboration with Wilders will now be an even greater test, even in an extra-parliamentary variant. The PVV is by far the largest party and has a decisive vote in selecting a prime minister. It is not obvious that Wilders will choose someone who will give him a lot of resistance.

The PVV leader will then have even more room to push the boundaries than before. VVD and NSC cannot count on him not making use of this.