Ask a Dutchman!

[dutchfire]

Originally mostly Morocco and Turkey. Though the current bunch is homegrown.

 

[Tahuti]

Most of our local Muslims are 2nd or 3rd generation descendants from 20th century labour immigration. In recent years the immigration laws have become considerably more strict (which predates the PVV/Wilders agitation about this issue.). Currently it's mostly Eastern European "immigrants" (from fellow EU members that is) that are causing concern in certain circles - but, ofcourse, once again these are labour migrants. (Unemployment in the Netherlands is at the highest level since 30 years, and not likely to go down in the near future, although there are some economic indicators that things might improve.)

Stopping Eastern European immigration would require significant downscaling of our integration within the EU to a point which few Dutch people would support, even PVV voters.

Originally mostly Morocco and Turkey. Though the current bunch is homegrown.

Which makes the Dutch political consensus regarding immigration idiotic beyond belief: Because of poorly integrated people of Moroccan and Turkish people who have Dutch citizenship, it is supposedly sensible to keep and even tighten immigration barriers.

 

[Agent327]

Stopping Eastern European immigration would require significant downscaling of our integration within the EU to a point which few Dutch people would support, even PVV voters.

I meant the Muslims that Geert and the PVV tend to rant about.

Wilders has shifted his focus to being anti-EU now - for a trade country (as the Netherlands is) about as inane as his anti-Islam stance.

Which makes the Dutch political consensus regarding immigration idiotic beyond belief: Because of poorly integrated people of Moroccan and Turkish people who have Dutch citizenship, it is supposedly sensible to keep and even tighten immigration barriers.

I think stricter immigration rules are mostly intended to keep poor refugees out - a clear violation of international human rights treaties, but who cares nowadays?

 

[Tahuti]

Wilders has shifted his focus to being anti-EU now - for a trade country (as the Netherlands is) about as inane as his anti-Islam stance.

Interestingly, all Dutch Right-Wing populists (Pim Fortuyn, Rita Verdonk and now Wilders) come from a Catholic background, even though the Netherlands was founded in part because of opposition to the Catholic rule by the Habsburg monarchs. Wilder's native region of Limburg wasn't even part of the original Netherlands for a looong time.

But yes, Wilders is more anti-EU than anti-Islam nowadays.

I think stricter immigration rules are mostly intended to keep poor refugees out - a clear violation of international human rights treaties, but who cares nowadays?

That's more a consequence than was the goal. Before Pim Fortuyn - who changed the political debate towards immigration related issues - Job Cohen already tightened immigration laws in 2000, to reverse the relatively pro-immigration politics that were supported by economic liberal parties like D66, VVD and CDA to attract guest workers. Then came the radical right, and the VVD and CDA reversed their stance on immigration as well to adapt to the recent success of Right-Wing populism. Radical rightists like Pim Fortuyn argued that immigration was responsible for the profileration of Islamic culture in the Netherlands, that Islam was dangerous to democracy, and that halting immigration would stop this development. (as said earlier, this was totally inane, since most Muslims in the Netherlands are Dutch citizens and most immigration come from non-Muslim countries)

The immigration law that was authored by Job Cohen became more infamous when Rita Verdonk (herself part of a more radical faction within the VVD, which later led to her expulsion from the party) became the Minister of Immigration and executed the said law to its logical conclusions.

The nasty part of it, that the Left is arguably just as responsible for the hostile climate towards immigrants, if not more so, than the Right. The Socialist party adopted strong anti-immigrant rhetoric that echoed the "Centre Democrats" (who are hardly centrist, as these are well to the right of even Wilders) in the 1970s and 1980s, though they now seem to have rescinded that policy, now that opposition to immigration is seen as a Right-Wing issue.

 

[Takhisis]

That's a common pattern, in a democracy the decisions are taken by the majority but it's a minority's fault when things go wrong.

And yes, it's stupid to oppose the EU if you make such a lot of money from controlling trade coming to/from the Rhine, overseas, etc.

Would the new King be allowed to have an 'opinion' on this?

 

[Agent327]

Sure, but our monarch is not supposed to express opinions of a political nature unless such opinions are in agreement with government policy. (If he does, it's the government that has to answer for it; something Thorbecke wrote into the constitution mid-19th century, and referred to as "ministerial responsability".)

 

[Tahuti]

Sure, but our monarch is not supposed to express opinions of a political nature unless such opinions are in agreement with government policy. (If he does, it's the government that has to answer for it; something Thorbecke wrote into the constitution mid-19th century, and referred to as "ministerial responsability".)

That's basically a dead law. The ministerial responsibility was intended to compromise with the Absolute Monarchy that existed before the 1848 constitution that included this particular stipulation. The idea was that monarch would actually be able to wield some power, because he would have a legal way to blame the democratic political system for his failures.

However, most monarchs since have not exercised the de-jure political power they possess, to the full extent possible, so the Dutch monarchy is limited because of its own political passiveness as in Britain, than because of any constitutional limitations like in Sweden or Japan.

 

[Agent327]

That's basically a dead law. The ministerial responsibility was intended to compromise with the Absolute Monarchy that existed before the 1848 constitution that included this particular stipulation. The idea was that monarch would actually be able to wield some power, because he would have a legal way to blame the democratic political system for his failures.

Or Thorbecke used the concept to get his liberal constitution accepted by the monarch. Theoretically the monarch could still dismiss any government; in practice, however, the political primacy came to belong with the elected bodies. So you are correct in saying that it is a rudimentary principle now, but it wasn't originally.

 

[Irkalla]

I'm not Dutch, but may I answer this one? I do speak Dutch...
German and Dutch are probably closer related to each other than to any other language. There are a lot of similarities, but they are not mutually intelligible, like the Scandinavian languages are. However if you make a little bit of an effort, at least understanding the other language isn't that difficult. Speaking is something very different, as I have noticed
It also depends a bit on the German dialects. The dialects along the border with Holland and Belgium (for instance Aachen, Cologne,...) have more similarities with Dutch, making it easier for those people to understand us.

If I had to say dutch was close to any language, it would be english. If I knew neither language, I would certainly mistake one for the other.

 

[anandus]

If I had to say dutch was close to any language, it would be english. If I knew neither language, I would certainly mistake one for the other.

The irony is that German and English are more closely related than Dutch and either.
Old German and old English (and old Frisian) have common roots in old-Saxon, old Dutch in old-Frankish. (If I'm not mistaken)

Of course modern languages are a lot more complicated due to cross-fertilization and such.

 

[Takhisis]

So everyone's f****ed everyone else?

 

[Tahuti]

The irony is that German and English are more closely related than Dutch and either.
Old German and old English (and old Frisian) have common roots in old-Saxon, old Dutch in old-Frankish. (If I'm not mistaken)

Of course modern languages are a lot more complicated due to cross-fertilization and such.

If I am not mistaken, Old Frankish comes from Old German, alongside Swabian, Bavarian and Niederdeutsch. Swabian and Bavarian were to become the basis for Hochdeutsch, which in turn led to modern German. Dutch and modern German have an ancestor in common that English and Frisian do not have. Frisian directly descends from Old Saxon, as is English (in all likelihood, it might also have descended from Jute, though that's less likely).

 

[Takhisis]

I need a bit of help with legalities… what is a 'Naamloze Vennootschap'? Apparently it's the equivalent of Argentina's 'limited responsibility society' (a type of public company, but I don't want to give a dissertation on societary/company law), but I don't know what's so special about one of those over the pond.

 

[Jan H]

As I understand it, a "NV" is what in English is called a "corporation" or "joint-stock company". It's similar to a "Société Anonieme" (SA) in French or an "Aktiengesellschaft" (AG) in German. The company is a separate netity for the law, it's shareholders are anonymous and can freely exchangeor sell their shares.

It is therefore not a "limited liability company". In Dutch, that would be called a "Besloten Vennootschap" (BV), which is more restricted form of company (typically for smaller businesses)

 

[Tahuti]

It is therefore not a "limited liability company". In Dutch, that would be called a "Besloten Vennootschap" (BV), which is more restricted form of company (typically for smaller businesses)

Isn't that BVBA in Belgium?

However, both BV's and NV's have legal personhood. However, NV's can (they do not have to) be publicly traded while BV's cannot. This is because the "vennoten" - a very strange Dutch word that does not have a precise translation in English, with stockholders and stakeholders coming closest - in an NV do not have to be named, hence the name "Naamloze Vennootschap" or nameless "vennoot"ship. In a BV, which translates as "Closed vennootship", the "vennoten" must be registered by name, which makes it impossible to trade it on the stock market. These resemble the US LLC or UK limited structure.

 

[Takhisis]

Hmmm, doesn't quite fall within Argentine law then, the 'Sociedad Anónima' and 'SRL' (a.k.a. LLC) are distinct entities.

 

[Tahuti]

Hmmm, doesn't quite fall within Argentine law then, the 'Sociedad Anónima' and 'SRL' (a.k.a. LLC) are distinct entities.

So are BV's and NV's.

 

[Jan H]

Isn't that BVBA in Belgium?

indeed, in Belgium a "BV" would be called a "BVBA" ("besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid" or "closed partnership with limited liability").

But the title of the thread is "Ask a Dutchman", not "Ask a Belgian"

his is because the "vennoten" - a very strange Dutch word that does not have a precise translation in English

wouldn't it translate as "(business-)partner"? For instance, a lawyer can be a "vennoot" or partner in a law firm.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't know about vennoten, but Humon Comics avatars should be verboten (except Sister Sweden).

 

[Agent327]

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about...