On the morning after the elections for the House of Representatives, Pieter Omtzigt contacts someone he has often consulted in recent years with questions about constitutional law issues: Leiden University professor Wim Voermans. That same day, the constitutional and administrative lawyer wrote a seven-page document with a “constitutional and rule of law analysis” of the PVV’s election manifesto, in which he commented on a number of measures if they conflicted with laws or treaties.
In the days that follow, Omtzigt will seek more substantive and strategic guidance from experts and others from his network. What should he do, how and when? For example, Professor of Constitutional Law at Radboud University Paul Bovend’Eert wants him to know more about cabinet forms other than a majority government: what about an extra-parliamentary cabinet, a business cabinet and a minority cabinet? How many times have these occurred in parliamentary history? These are options that Omtzigt later explicitly mentions in a letter to scout Ronald Plasterk, should the formation of a majority cabinet fail. Bovend’Eert previously also wrote administrative notes for NSC, about integrity and administrative innovation. Both Voermans and he emphasize that they are not party members of NSC and that they often provide advice to political parties that request it.
Pieter Omtzigt has been worrying and struggling for seventeen days. Immediately on the evening of the elections on November 22, he knew that his young party, which entered the House of Representatives with twenty seats, had to compete with the big winner: the PVV. His immediate search for information is a response to that uncomfortable outcome for NSC. Whenever he was asked during the campaign about cooperation with the PVV in a coalition, Omtzigt started talking about the PVV’s plans from the election manifesto and that they are unconstitutional. On election night he stopped talking about that. Instead, he answered the question of power on his own: NSC was willing to “take responsibility.” He also echoed the words Wilders had used earlier that evening in his victory speech: politicians had to “get over their shadows.” The NSC leader believed: “The Netherlands must be governed. And we are available for that.”
He hasn’t been that confident since. Certainly not after the VVD ruled out cabinet participation two days after the elections and claimed a role of tolerance for itself. This move immediately shifted the focus to NSC. That party could make a radical right-wing cabinet of PVV, NSC, BBB and with support from VVD possible – or not. It is a position that disappoints them at NSC.
Rule of law and good governance
From conversations with those involved, it can be concluded that Omtzigt is looking for a way to deal with the situation. Is there a way to form a cabinet without compromising the subject that made the NSC so great: the rule of law and good governance? The document that Voermans wrote provides guidance for this. Does the PVV want to denaturalize criminals and deport them from the country? “That is contrary to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,” Voermans writes. No Islamic schools, Qurans and mosques? “That is contrary to Article 6 of the Constitution, Article 23 of the Constitution (and actually also Articles 1 and 7 of the Constitution).” Border security? ‘Border controls are in principle not covered by the Schengen Treaty’, although there are exceptions for ‘temporary border controls’. No transfer of powers to the European Union, but their recovery? “An opt-out is only possible when entering into the treaties as a kind of condition. If you no longer want to be unilaterally bound, this can only be done through withdrawal (Article 50 Treaty on the EU).”
His search for information has not led to Omtzigt permanently closing the door to cooperation with the PVV. This week he had several conversations with Wilders and Plasterk. On Thursday afternoon, after the last conversation, Omtzigt and Wilders said exactly the same: it had been a “constructive” and “good” conversation. Omtzigt called it “wise” to talk. Insiders report that Plasterk will recommend further talks between NSC, PVV, VVD and BBB in his final report next Monday. This will happen in phases: the (rule of law) objections that parties have about measures from the PVV election manifesto will first be discussed. Only then can further discussions take place. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives will debate the election results and Plasterk’s report.
In NSC it can be heard that the promise to continue talks does not mean that the outcome is certain: a cabinet with the PVV. Yes, the conversations about the content can start. But at the same time, the party is still thinking about what it will mean if the four get out. It could place the party in a difficult position if it turns out that the willingness to compromise initiated by Wilders continues. Can you start over on principled objections if they did not previously constitute an obstacle to substantive discussions?
Support base
The faction discussed the outcome of the exploration on Friday. From the start, Omtzigt promised MPs that he would provide room for discussion. And also to include them in decision-making. As a CDA MP, Omtzigt regularly attended formations in which his party also participated, he knows how important it is to keep ranks closed and be assured of support.
Former CDA member Eddy van Hijum also knows this, who largely wrote the NSC election manifesto and will act as Omtzigt’s second during the formation. If only because in 2010 they witnessed firsthand how the CDA almost disintegrated when that party had to decide on cabinet participation with the VVD and tolerating support from the PVV. Initially Omtzigt opposed this, but eventually he voted in favor.
Omtzigt experienced that period, which was experienced as drastic by many in the faction, as a Member of Parliament. He now bears full responsibility for satisfying his faction, party management, party members and voters and keeping them on board. In the NSC faction there are objections to a cabinet with PVV that is partly made possible by their party – because of the anti-constitutional plans of Wilders’ party, although there are also MPs who are pragmatic about it.
It seems impossible at this point that the NSC MPs will unanimously agree to a Wilders I cabinet. But voters, as research by EenVandaag showed, thought very differently about this shortly after the elections: more than 80 percent liked a cabinet with PVV, NSC, VVD and BBB. More than 70 percent thought it would be no problem if Geert Wilders were Prime Minister. It is difficult to estimate how members feel about the issue; the possibility of becoming a party member has only existed for about two months and there is little insight into what they think about cooperation with the PVV. What if they do not want their party to cooperate with Wilders and start to stir? In NSC they are not comfortable with it.
Reading list