Can a fallen cabinet fall apart once? And then again about asylum? Suddenly, on Thursday evening 10 p.m., that question became current in the Lower House. Nicolien van Vroonhoven, party leader of the NSC government party, ended the room where her twenty -person group had met for an hour. NSC could not live with ‘this terrible rot-amendment’ of the PVV, which had accepted the room two days earlier.
Van Vroonhoven wanted a letter from outgoing minister David van Weel (Justice, VVD), in which he would write that it would not go so fast with the PVV plan to criminalize illegality. Another letter, because the first, that afternoon sent, NSC did not like it. That was a “flut letter.” Van Weel had to offer NSC ‘comfort’. And different? Van Vroonhoven did not want to exclude that after the PVV NSC would also step out of the outgoing cabinet.
It was already late in the evening, and time penetrated. The room was about to go with summer recess. Before that time all legislative proposals had to be voted on, including the so -called ‘asylum measurement measures’ and the two -status system bill, which were submitted during the time that the PVV was still a government party.
But support for those laws, which, according to the cabinet, makes “the strictest asylum policy ever possible, was suddenly uncertain. Within NSC, first before, the voices became louder and louder to vote against. And the SGP received objections. The CDA had already dropped out. For example, not only a majority in the Lower House evaporated, but especially in the Senate.
Atmosphere of chaos
The parliamentary handling of this extensive asylum measures package went throughout the week in an atmosphere of total chaos. Nobody knew what happened. On Thursday night, the House of Representatives finally voted before the laws, but the chaotic way in which was typical of the era.
The crisis started on Tuesday, when the House of Representatives voted for a long series of amendments on the two major asylum laws. The room can adjust laws with amendments. Those two laws are of great social and politics. They make much stricter asylum policy possible, and that affects the lives of asylum seekers and status holders, but also the policy of municipalities and provinces.
Politically, the laws are also crucial: many parties on the right and in the middle want just before new parliamentary elections to show that they too are for stricter asylum policy. That is why the outgoing cabinet (VVD, NSC and BBB) also wanted to continue the measures of the departed minister Marjolein Faber after the PVV gets out.
But amendments that could considerably aggravate the laws on the legislative proposals. One, from the PVV, achieved a majority totally unexpectedly: illegality would be punishable. This also applies to citizens or authorities that help people in illegality. Why this proposal suddenly received a majority: it had gone wrong with ‘pairing’. Some MPs who were against, including GroenLinks-PvdA leader Frans Timmermans, had not arranged well that their voice would be eliminated against that of a supporter-an old use in the room. A blunder is also said in GroenLinks-Pvda.
Counterfeit
But the adopted amendment at the same time initiated a – also unexpected – counter -reaction. Because the CDA, which is a criminalization of illegality, was strong against this amendment. Party leader Henri Bontenbal thought it was going far too far that help to people in illegality could also be punished. Bontenbal withdrew his support to the two laws of the cabinet. With that he brought the future of the laws into great danger.
Soon the SGP, which had voted in favor. The party seemed to have underestimated the implications and looked for a way out. Because what did this amendment mean for, for example, churches that offer illegal immigrants a cup of soup? Will they be prosecuted later?
In addition, they were supported by NSC, which had voted against, but where the internal division struck. Some MPs found that the amendment meant that the two asylum laws should not take place either. Others thought that the laws should continue. In principle, it was in principle for both camps in the group, those involved said.
NSC and SGP moved together on Thursday. They wanted hard commitments from Minister Van Weel. He didn’t give it. In a parliamentary debate, Van Weel said that he is not, but the Public Prosecution Service, weighs who is and is not prosecuted. If the Chamber takes on an amendment, the Chamber will determine the content a law. “And the law is the law.”
Pepsi bottles
NSC and SGP started, with advanced bottles of Pepsi, crisis consultation in the room of SGP leader Chris Stoffer. The constitutional Reformed and the Party of Good Governance started a constitutional fröbelwerkje. They were looking for ways to alleviate the amendment. There are hardly any in the Lower House in the law or the regulations. After all, they wanted to adjust an amendment already adopted, and that is not how legislation works. So a list had to be made up.
The parties put Van Weel under pressure to come up with a new letter. He finally sent it in the late evening. Van Weel hardly made any new commitments. He promised that the Council of State would take a good look at it. But it is a check afterwards: the amendment has already been adopted. Moreover: what happens to the advice? The Council of State was already very critical in February about the two asylum laws of Marjolein Faber, and they were simply implemented. Van Weel still promises to debate the parties with the Chamber on the “compelling” advice from the Council of State for the amendment also becomes real policy.
Anyway, the commitment was enough for the two parties to agree to both asylum laws. Only NSC MP Faith Bruyning voted against the asylum measures Act. Almost everyone was damaged from this umpteenth political crisis around asylum. The coherence in the outgoing cabinet turned out to be very weak again. Two very radical laws were adopted at the very last moment with a lot of art and flying work.