Wilders threatens to leave Dutch government if no halt to asylum
Millions of Dutch people, he said, expected the implementation of a corresponding 10-point plan from his Party for Freedom (PVV), Wilders wrote on X on Sunday.
The PVV leader added: "Let me be very clear: If the majority of our proposals from the 10-point asylum plan are not adopted (and thus added to the coalition agreement) and the government does not implement them as quickly as possible, the PVV will exit this coalition."
Wilders issued the threat shortly before consultations by the four-party coalition on the PVV's demands, which, according to the ANP news agency, were scheduled for Monday evening.
The PVV, the strongest force in parliament since the recent election, is demanding the closure of borders to all asylum seekers. If necessary, the army should be deployed to control the borders, Wilders had stated during the presentation of the plan a week ago.
He also demanded that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees should be sent back to their homeland, and asylum centres should be closed.
Additionally, Wilders is calling for an end to family reunification for recognized refugees and the expulsion of criminal individuals with dual nationality, with their Dutch nationality then being revoked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
4 days ago
- Associated Press
Central African Republic rebels found guilty of war crimes by International Criminal Court
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — International Criminal Court judges convicted two leaders of a predominantly Christian rebel group in the Central African Republic of multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity on Thursday, sentencing each to more than a decade in prison. Former Central African Republic soccer federation president Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona and Alfred Yekatom, a rebel leader known as 'Rambo,' were found guilty of their involvement in atrocities including murder, torture and attacking civilians. The court sentenced Ngaïssona to 12 years, and Yekatom to 15 years. The charges stem from their roles as senior leaders in a militia known as the anti-Balaka, which engaged in bitter fighting with the mainly Muslim Seleka rebel group in 2013 and 2014. The interreligious violence left thousands dead and displaced hundreds of thousands. Mosques, shops and homes were looted and destroyed. Anti-Balaka forces 'attacked localities with Muslim civilians, killing and dislocating many of them,' Presiding Judge Bertram Schmitt said, reading out the verdict in The Hague. Malick Karomschi, president of the Muslim Organization for Innovation in the Central African Republic, a nongovernmental organization that supports victims of sexual violence, said that he's glad that justice has been served. 'We feared the worst — that they would be acquitted so the fact that they were found guilty is already a good thing.' Karomschi told The Associated Press. The pair maintained their innocence during the trial, which opened in 2021. It was the first case at the global court to focus on the violence that erupted after the Seleka seized power in the Central African Republic in 2013. The country has been mired in conflict since rebels forced then President Francois Bozize from office. Anti-Balaka militias fought back, also targeting civilians and sending most of the Muslim residents of the capital, Bangui, fleeing in fear. The trial of an alleged Seleka commander, Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, is ongoing. Last year, judges at the court unsealed another arrest warrant in the investigation. According to prosecutors, Edmond Beina commanded a group of about 100-400 anti-Balaka fighters responsible for murdering Muslims in early 2014. Separate proceedings against Beina and five others at a specially-created court are slated to begin in the Central African Republic on Friday. ___ Jean-Fernand Koena contributed to this report from Bangui, Central African Republic.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult. The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences. It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019. "Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally. "This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard." The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week. Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming. Many poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem. But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday the court rejected that argument. Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement. He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement - or want to leave, like the US - are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system. The court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. "The ruling is a watershed legal moment," said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law. "With today's authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation," she added. The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation. This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis. It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful. Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change - or $16 million per hour. A simple guide to climate change Four ways climate change worsens extreme weather What you can do to reduce carbon emissions Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here. Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
5 days ago
- CNN
World's top court says top polluters may need to pay reparations for climate harm
The world's highest court said polluting countries may be in breach of international law if they do not protect the planet from the 'existential threat' posed by climate change, in a landmark advisory opinion issued Wednesday. It also said countries feeling the sharp end of climate change may be entitled to reparations for the harm caused by rising temperatures. The advisory opinion marks the first time the International Court of Justice, the UN's top court based in the Hague, has formally addressed the climate crisis. The court was asked to consider two fundamental questions: what legal obligations nations have under international law to address climate change, and what the consequences should be for countries that harm the climate. Its opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, said climate change was an 'urgent and existential' threat and was unequivocally caused by human activities. 'The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights,' said Yuji Iwasawa, president of the ICJ, as he read out the opinion. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' he added. The court said states must cooperate to reduce planet-heating pollution and that countries harmed by the climate crisis may be entitled to reparations on a case-by-case basis. The ruling is not legally binding, but the status of the court gives it significant weight. Experts say it could bolster climate negotiations and provide a huge boost to climate lawsuits around the world. 'This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable,' said Flora Vano, Vanuatu country manager for the non-profit ActionAid. 'As the planet's weather becomes more chaotic, this ruling paves the way for the protections and reparations we desperately need to rebuild our lives and secure a just future.' The opinion comes in the middle of a summer punctuated by extreme weather events, made more intense, more frequent and more deadly by climate change. Vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere have baked under searing heat waves and more than 1,000 lives have been lost to devastating flooding from the US to Pakistan. The idea for the case originated with a group of law students in Fiji in 2019, who were trying to find a way to hold the rich world accountable for climate change, for which they are disproportionately responsible. Their plan was endorsed by the government of Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation facing an existential threat from fast-rising seas. In 2021, it called on the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on countries' legal responsibility to fight the climate crisis. More than 100 states and international organizations took part in two weeks of hearings before the court in December. Many wealthier counties argued that climate responsibilities were already set out in existing treaties including the Paris climate agreement. Developing nations, which are paying a steep and deadly price for a climate crisis they did little to cause, argued these treaties are failing and called for stronger measures to ensure a livable planet. Under the Paris Agreement, countries pledged to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above levels before humans began burning large amounts of fossil fuels. The world is currently heading towards 3 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, which would bring catastrophic impacts and the risk of triggering climate tipping points, including ice sheet melting, which may be irreversible on human timescales. The ICJ case is one of several climate-related cases launched in international courts in recent years. In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels counts as marine pollution. The court, which is based in Germany, ruled countries had legal obligations to mitigate the impacts. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion which stated countries have a duty under international law to address the threat posed by climate change.
