No, the Constitution does not provide protection.At legal level not, because we have no possibility to test laws to the Constitution, as evidenced by this answer from Quora user.On a practical level either.
In my view, Baudet or the FvD In itself is not the problem.In that respect, Maarten van Rossem was right to say that we have a carnival party. The danger lies in the legitimacy that such a figure gives to extremist organizations, such as the NVU and Pegida. Not to mention Blood & Honour. I’m not saying that Baudet belongs to this kind of group, just as Trump is not at the KKK. But the KKK feels confirmed in its position as Trump calls Mexicans killers and rapists, and that is dangerous.
By BV. To reiterate that the young women of Europe are threatened by refugees repeat the reasons that these types of groups use for violence.If one is threatened existentially, one has the right to ‘ defend ‘ itself in an extreme way. The number of ‘ hatecrimes ‘ has been quite sustained in the US since Trump was elected. We even saw a Charlotteville, because these groups didn’t feel that now was the time to crawl under the stones. You don’t want these groups to get the idea that these kinds of ideas are common.
See how the Hungarian Baudet proceeded.
Just as populist as Baudet blame the foreigners and boast of the superiority of their own people.
They won the elections.However, there were a few hanrdnekkigen that were every time the louse in the fur. This is also a chief judge who was fierce opponent and saw their plans. This guy was already in the 70 but certainly did not want to stop knowing.
How to get there from and spawn the population in the meantime.”Set a compulsory retirement age” that was not there for the ordinary citizen and it was such a success in the next election that they took a 2/3rd majority and so could decide on everything.
There was a retirement age and Hoppa, thanks to the people, the great burden-post was also cleared away.
But then it started to flourish, by the 2/3 majority they could enter into the Constitution fit [do you feel positive in your question as answer already arrive?And because of all the changes they needed no other party to do, the constitution was changed so that the citizen had nothing more to say. (yes, it was also in the 30s in Germany)
Now there is already a law that stipulates that companies only have to pay overtime after 3 years.And then it’s also an average over those three years, so lesser periods you pay yourself from your overtime.
So look good around you and learn from what has gone wrong in the past.
Keep in mind that Baudet calls very hard and calls and evokes (the power of repetition) all the people in the 2nd room are for lying cartel boyfriends but that he himself was the founder and very active to push the Ukraine referendum through our down throats.Often they twisted facts and fears. They already knew in advance that the Netherlands could not turn the treaty with Ukraine in a NO, but that was also not the approach.
The approach was to create and inflate dissatisfaction.Just think no = no, but they too knew that the referendum was consultative and not binding.
Everything with the approach to make people dissatisfied and thus paving the way to the 2nd room.
It is remarkable how Dutch citizens have screens with the Constitution, all the more so they cannot legally derive any right from them.
It is the first chamber in the Netherlands to review the laws of the Constitution.If a law is passed by the first chamber, the review has been carried out. Further scrutiny is then no longer possible, certainly not by the citizen.
Whoever has a majority in the first chamber can therefore pass on laws that are not in accordance with the Constitution.This has recently been done by legislating the judiciary for certain violations of the law, by allowing the prosecution of criminal powers. This legislation is unconstitutional.
In such cases, solutions for citizens only offer international conventions, such as the Treaty of Rome.Such treaties are obvious, for example, the UK can do so after Brexit. An interesting perspective for some political movements.
Incidentally, it is possible for citizens in Germany or the US to rely legally on the constitution.
That is correct.The Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights that cannot simply be reversed.
A substantial majority is needed to amend the Constitution.Baudet will not achieve a majority in the Netherlands as quickly. For this, the political landscape is too fragmented.
The term fascism is used, but if you get the definition of fascism in it, I think that all of this is happening (from Wikipedia):
- Fascism is the opponent of both the traditionally left and right-wing political parties. [4
- Fascism scorns contemporary conservative institutions. [4
- Fascism is reusing power and the use of force to the extent that it seeks to overthrow the existing social order.
- Fascism has an authoritarian structure with the head of which is a leader to whom charismatic traits are attributed.
- Fascism seeks to establish a political dictatorship.
- Fascism seeks to be a totalitarian state 鈧?”Full control over social and cultural organizations.
- Fascism is extremely nationalistic.
- Fascism advocates a continuous struggle to be able to survive the nation in the midst of other states.
- Fascism is mainly based on the social middle class.
- Fascism seeks social unity and the elimination of all existing classes and interests.
Explain this once next to Baudet s Forum for democracy.Right? Sure. Populist? Also. Fascist? Certainly not.
The ironic is that his anti-fascist opponents meet more of these points than Baudet himself, including the social unity, the demonstration of power by demonstrations, the disdain of authority and the summoning of violence.
We hope so.Moreover, the Constitution can also be amended
Even within the Constitution, parties can change a whole lot in a short time, just look at what VVD has done with the welfare state in two cabinet periods.
FVD is perfectly able to within the Constitution the entire environment and climate policy to help soap.The (higher) education and policy to make it as difficult as possible for foreigners