From Holland to Hollande, the answer is 'No" to Brussels If it can happen in Holland, after all, it can happen anywhere. The Netherlands enjoys a triple-A credit rating. Its Liberal-Christian Democrat coalition had been seen, until yesterday, as a model of sobriety and prudence. Think of the stern, black-suited burghers in a portrait by Rembrandt or Frans Hals and you'll have the general idea. That such a country should be drawn into the maelstrom is proof that we are dealing with a crisis of monetary union and not, as euro-apologists like to claim, with a general debt crisis. The Dutch deficit is 4.7 per cent, compared with 8.3 per cent in the United Kingdom and 9.1 per cent in Greece. Its total debt is 66 per cent of GDP - compared with, respectively, 82 per cent and 161 per cent. Mr Wilders was wrong to oppose the budget. All Western countries, including the Netherlands, need to deal with the happy problem of increasing longevity. His walk-out, however, should be seen in context. The Netherlands is just one of five big budget contributors in the eurozone - along with Austria, Germany, Luxembourg and Finland. Taxpayers from these countries are being asked, in effect, to bail out governments that have been less prudent than their own. Many Dutch voters believe that they are being asked to retire later so that Italians can retire earlier: robbing Pieter to pay Paolo. Their resentment is heightened by the EU's profligacy. While it preaches austerity to the 27 member states, the European Commission unblushingly demands a 7 per cent increase in its own budget. There was a time, not long ago, when Brussels waste and sleaze went unreported by the Europhile Dutch media, but the internet has changed all that. Our sundered kindred are starting to see the EU as we see it, and to become angry. Heaven knows they have plenty to be angry about. Since the crisis struck four years ago, Europe's leaders have been concerned with preserving the single currency rather than with maximising the prosperity of the people who use it. It is now clear to almost everyone that the euro is a recessionary mechanism. It is causing deflation and emigration in the southern states, and threatens massive tax rises in the north. Don't imagine, by the way, that we in Britain are exempt. Already, we are on the hook for £12.5 billion in the Irish, Greek and Portuguese bail-outs. To put that figure in context, all our domestic cuts last year amounted to £8.6 billion. Now we are adding another £10 billion through the IMF. In defending this additional debt, Treasury officials make two claims. First, that the fund is not intended to bail out the eurozone. (Who's it for, then? Canada?) Second, that it's a tremendous investment, and that we'll get the money back with interest. Well, if so, why not "invest" £100 billion? Or a trillion? The euro - or, rather, the determination of Europe's leaders to keep it - is not only causing preventable destitution; it is vitiating democracy. Yet Britain is investing, not merely political capital, but actual capital, in trying to hold the single currency together. Why are we paying for the privilege of hurting our allies? Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP