Wilders I’s possible coalition partners are already acting as a closed front

Anyone who looked through the parliamentary debate on the formation on Wednesday saw the coalition of the Wilders I cabinet at work. And it is no longer certain whether the outgoing Rutte IV cabinet will remain intact until a new cabinet has taken office.

It will not have happened often in parliamentary history that new political relations in the House of Representatives after elections have caused such a rift with a caretaker cabinet. And that forming parties were so eager to capitalize on their power base. The parliamentary debate was about the exploration of Ronald Plasterk, who was appointed informateur. But the debate ended in chaos and bewilderment on Wednesday evening.

What is crucial is not the PVV itself, which was the big winner of the elections with 37 seats. The leading role is claimed by the VVD, the largest party in Rutte IV and a possible tolerating partner of a new cabinet.

VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz surprised at the end of the debate with a motion in which she called on the cabinet and the Senate to “stand still” with the dispersal law while the formation is ongoing. That law, submitted by Rutte IV, must regulate that the reception of asylum seekers is distributed among municipalities and has already been adopted by the House of Representatives. Her motion was co-signed by the parties with which the VVD enters the information period: PVV, NSC and BBB.

Almost all other party leaders reacted with astonishment. “Constitutional vandalism,” said D66 leader and Cabinet colleague as Minister for Climate Rob Jetten. “Pretty tasteless,” said CDA leader Henri Bontenbal. “If I had been wearing clogs, they would have been broken by now,” said Pieter Grinwis (CU). And SGP member Chris Stoffer, opponent of the dispersal law, also emphasized that he was in favor of the content of the motion, but that “from the rule of law ” unable to support.

Rule of law

And so in a debate that until then had been about theory (will a coalition led by Geert Wilders adhere to the rule of law principles?) a concrete case suddenly came up. Because what Yesilgöz proposed is very unusual: in principle, the House of Representatives never interferes with the work of the Senate. Moreover: Yesilgöz, as party leader, tried to put an end to a law that she had previously supported as outgoing minister.

Caroline van der Plas (BBB), Eddy van Hijum (NSC), Dilan Yesilgoz (VVD), Pieter Omtzigt (NSC) and Mona Keijzer (BBB) ​​during a suspension of the debate.

Yesilgöz said that the new relationships in the House of Representatives made it possible to now find a majority for something the VVD always wanted. The PVV also wants an end to the distribution law. And it showed how the VVD exchanged the old coalition for a new one, although it is not formally there yet. Yesilgöz sat crouched next to Wilders – her new ally – for a long time in busy discussions.

Yesilgöz’s actions immediately caused anger in the outgoing Rutte IV cabinet. And also for misunderstanding. Cabinet members from the other government parties, D66, CDA and Christian Union, contacted each other – and also with the VVD. As it turned out, not everyone in that party was aware.

Some were already anticipating the end of the cabinet. Henri Bontenbal’s (CDA) words that the motion could “split” the outgoing cabinet were echoed in the cabinet. An outgoing cabinet cannot fall, but parties or ministers can leave.

Pieter Omtzigt (NSC) supported the motion, which earned him strong criticism from other parties, because as an independent Member of Parliament he had advocated good and reliable governance for years. He adopted a suggestion from Frans Timmermans (GroenLinks-PvdA) to have State Secretary Eric van der Burg (Asylum) respond to the motion before it is put to the vote. This results in the situation that Eric van der Burg, who is also a VVD MP, must form an opinion on behalf of the cabinet, of which Dilan Yesilgöz is also a member, on the motion of Yesilgöz – also his party colleague in the House.

Van der Burg has fervently defended the dispersal law in recent months. He is in contact with mayors almost daily to ask them to accommodate asylum seekers and announced on Tuesday that more than 1,300 status holders will be accommodated in hotels more quickly, because the application center in Ter Apel is overcrowded.

Exodus

Yesilgöz has now put himself in a difficult position. The cabinet must judge the motion and that will not be easy. During the debate on Wednesday evening, the party leaders of D66, CDA and CU contacted their party colleagues from the cabinet to discuss the VVD’s action. The cabinet must always judge unanimously. If it advises negatively on the motion, Yesilgöz can still put it to a vote in the House of Representatives. She is assured of a majority there. But she knows that the other parties in the cabinet could draw consequences from this. An exodus of the other three coalition parties cannot be ruled out. This also applies to the resignation of the VVD.

The motion came after the House had debated the rule of law for hours. In advance, parties feared that the democratic constitutional state and the rights of minorities would come under pressure if the PVV entered a cabinet. They were afraid that this would happen gradually, because the VVD, NSC and BBB would conform to the mores of the PVV.

Those three parties had been questioned about this for hours. And they had tried again and again to reassure the others. “Just have confidence,” said Geert Wilders, who promised to adapt his plans to the Constitution, but did not want to reflect on statements he made as a Member of Parliament. “A two-thirds majority is required in the Senate and House of Representatives for a constitutional amendment. I strongly reject the idea that you can just change things,” said Pieter Omtzigt. Yesilgöz: “The guarantees of the rule of law stand proud. I’m not going to fiddle with that or allow it to be fumbled. That is not a negotiation.”

But on Wednesday, during the first time that the possible coalition partners acted together, it immediately became clear that they were a closed front. And that they realize that they already have the majority.

Reading list




Email the editor