When Johan Remkes thinks that a conversation has lasted long enough, he takes a black box out of his inner pocket. Remkes, an avid smoker, keeps his cigarettes in it. He does it, he says with a laugh, “unconsciously”. But as soon as he puts the box on the table, it is immediately clear to those present: this conversation is over.
In recent years, the box has often made the journey from inner pocket to consultation table. If there is a Gordian knot in public administration, Johan Remkes will be called from one of the towers in The Hague. Last week, Remkes was awarded the Machiavelli Prize, which is awarded annually to a person or organization that excels in public communication, for the way in which he got the cabinet and farmers back to the table about nitrogen. “The Remkes factor, which is about communication. Johan Remkes connects parties and manages to restart a stalled dialogue. With an eye for the differences between the conceptual frameworks in politics in The Hague and the daily practice of the farmers”, the jury writes in its report.
Johan Remkes (71) announced his retirement three years ago, after a 45-year career in public administration. Deputy prime minister, minister, state secretary, king’s commissioner, interim mayor – he had seen and done it all. In 2020, he said in an interview with NRC finally have more time for his hobby: cycling. A year later he was asked as acting governor in Limburg after the entire provincial government resigned. And also as an informateur when the formation came to a complete standstill after the parliamentary elections. Remkes said yes over and over again.
Also read this interview that Remkes gave as acting governor: ‘I got more than I expected in Limburg’
You must really hate cycling.
“Ha ha, that’s not true. It has more to do with the phone calls I’ve been getting lately. Then Kaysa [Ollongren, minister van Binnenlandse Zaken in Rutte III, red.] called me for Limburg, I said that I thought the distance was too great. Physically, between Groningen and Maastricht. But also mentally. A Groningen man in Limburg. “That’s exactly why I’m asking you,” she said at the time. Well, there is something very challenging about that.”
If you give the impression that you want to reduce taxes across the board, then that is an extremely unwise statement
About an interview by VVD member Edith Schippers
Do you sometimes say no?
“Yes, they shouldn’t call me for all sorts of trifles. But if the Prime Minister calls, or in the case of the formation the VVD faction leader, you don’t ignore such a request lightly.”
When nitrogen minister Christianne van der Wal (VVD) called him in the summer last year, Remkes was on holiday with his wife. “In Italy, we just walked into our apartment. Of course I had heard something about the wishes in the House of Representatives, whether there was no mediator or, I don’t know, what should be appointed. My wife said, ‘You know what she’s going to ask. And you’re not going to do that.”
He did. Initially, says Remkes, he “expressed a very clear hesitation in a penetrating telephone conversation” with Van der Wal. A mediator, he thought, could not be appointed unilaterally by the cabinet. “I was willing to fulfill the role of independent chairman if necessary. But a mediator? She didn’t need to be with me for that.” Leaning back slowly: “And well, as it goes, then you get the Prime Minister on the phone.”
Directly after?
“Very smoothly. And I said the same to Mark Rutte. That is how I have been referred to in parliamentary letters since then: an independent moderator. But in the media I kept being called a mediator. This has caused some unnecessary resistance among some in agricultural circles. And then there was also that interview from Wopke.”
Remkes refers to statements that Wopke Hoekstra, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and CDA leader, made in the summer in the AD. In it he called a cabinet agreement – halving nitrogen emissions by 2030 – ‘not sacred’. It led to a big row in the cabinet.
“Wopke had called me late the night before it came out. I told him: I don’t know what you said in that interview. “It needs to be a little more flexible,” he said. That’s what it came down to. So I say: that interview has been given and I can no longer change it. I’ll see what happens.”
Was that your way of letting them know you not amused used to be?
“Yes. I have used these terms and it may be inferred that I did not listen to him with great joy.” Immediately after the publication of his advice, Remkes was called by Hoekstra. “He thought it was good advice, he said.”
If it had been Pieter Heerma, the CDA party leader in the House of Representatives, who had turned against the government’s policy, says Remkes, “I would have understood that from a certain degree of dualism. But members of the cabinet have much less freedom.”
Read also: The CDA has a crisis to spare for much needed ‘recognisability’
In the CDA they were very worried that summer, there was unrest among the rank and file about the cabinet’s nitrogen plans, and they were also losing heavily in the polls.
“That interview has not helped in that respect, if I look at the current polls. Of course, the question then arises as to what point it had.”
At the CDA they think so. There they say that what they call an ‘intervention’ has helped. “That is the CDA at work,” Hoekstra said recently. Do you share that view?
“No. I know from experience how area processes work. It is an illusion to think that you can map out exactly how things will go between now and 2030. So it is wise to build in some interim measurement moments. That was not in the interview. I came to that conclusion myself based on the conversations I had.”
JA21 and the BoerBurgerBeweging, skeptical about the government’s nitrogen plans, are growing in the polls. Are you confident that provincial councils will implement your advice after the March elections?
“I am a very optimistic person. It could cause a delay, there is a possibility. I can also see, of course, that there will be very serious political discussions at the provincial level. Provinces are not pure implementing organisations, they have their own responsibility. The government will have to deal with this wisely. The amount of money provinces will receive to fulfill their task is still to be negotiated. I can imagine that political willingness is also partly determined by the results of the negotiations. And the government itself also has an important responsibility in tackling peak loaders.”
I think that politicians are occasionally guilty of wishful thinking
In his acceptance speech when he received the Machiavelli Prize, Remkes had started on Wednesday evening about the importance of ‘listening, listening, listening’. “In the current political climate, with a special role for social media, sending, sending, sending has replaced it too much.”
The Rutte IV cabinet wanted to restore confidence, but when it came down to it you needed to start a conversation with farmers. Are you confident that they can do it without you?
“If the cabinet does not make it very seriously that what has been recommended is carried out with a very listening ear, then they will have the flame in the pan again in no time. But I have faith in the government.”
Have you let it go completely, yes? This morning you were having coffee with Minister of Agriculture Piet Adema (Christian Union).
“To chat for a while. Of course I follow it all. I still follow the local media in The Hague, North Holland and Limburg.”
And if you see that something isn’t quite right…
“I don’t rule out making a phone call every now and then.”
Remkes took office as informant in September 2021 – after Herman Tjeenk Willink and Mariëtte Hamer had made unsuccessful attempts. The formation had already lasted half a year. After a month he had VVD, D66, CDA and ChristenUnie so far: they wanted to try it together. It then took almost another three months for them to reach a coalition agreement. Remkes: „The conversations in the formation did not give me the most energy. Every now and then I thought: you’re just sitting here arguing about sentences. The world may look completely different tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. And that happened. Shortly after the cabinet was in place, there was already a ruling by the Supreme Court about box 3. That would have serious financial implications that were not foreseen. And a little later Russia invaded Ukraine. That, of course, puts things in perspective.”
What does it say that the forming parties attached so much value to those phrases?
“That too much was attached to what was devised at the side tables, where MPs negotiated in parallel to keep the groups calm. And also that there was not mutual trust between the negotiators across the board.”
If there was no mutual trust then, why should there be now?
“Yes, look, I assume that there is a working way… There was no conceivable alternative to this formation, which depended on each other from parties that excluded each other.”
You had been instructed by the House of Representatives to investigate a minority variant. Five years ago you were chairman of the State Committee on the Parliamentary System, which considered a ‘less cramped relationship with minority cabinets’ desirable. This was your chance.
“It was an important reason for me to accept the assignment as an informant, I was very serious about it at first. But I had to conclude that when push came to shove, the parties did not want that. Not even parties that had supported the parliamentary motion that called for this. There was a moment of disappointment with me. Given the total lack of alternatives, I was ultimately quite satisfied that something had worked out.”
Confidence in the government is low. This is partly because the same parties have formed a new cabinet with partly the same people, while the previous cabinet resigned because of the Supplementary Affair.
“I understand that. But the lack of alternatives is evident. Then people should have voted differently, that’s how our system works. To regain trust, politicians must listen more. And solve problems. For example, make sure that if there is a government response to the report of the parliamentary committee of inquiry, such as on Friday about Groningen, a credible approach is outlined for the people who are now in misery. And make sure that the handling of the Supplementary Affair gets a strong boost. I think that politicians are occasionally guilty of wishful thinking.”
Wishful thinking or empty promises?
“Sometimes empty promises, sometimes promising too much while you don’t know if you can keep it. Housing construction, for example, always depends on external circumstances. That’s not all in your control. The interest rate has quite a big influence on that. If you don’t include that in your message and promise that 900,000 homes will be built [voor 2030]then that is of course very unwise.”
You are now referring to Hugo de Jonge, the Minister for Housing (CDA).
“I don’t mean it so much in the direction of Hugo de Jonge personally. I always think you should take the uncertainties with you. Otherwise you will be disappointed and that will not serve the confidence.”
The leader of your party in the Senate, Edith Schippers (VVD), recently said in a interview with nu.nl that she is “in principle for a tax reduction” “on everything”.
There is a silence. “How do they say that? Promising a lot and giving little… I’m now looking for the sequel, I’ve lost that for a while [… doet een gek in vreugde leven, red.].
I have not read the interview with Schippers. What you can say is that the VVD ultimately strives for lower costs. But if you give the impression that you want to reduce taxes across the board in the next four years, then that is an extremely unwise statement.”