Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Are the negotiations taking longer than usual or is this pretty typical for Dutch cabinet formations?

No, it is clearly taking longer than usual. The average duration of government formations since 1946 has been somewhere between 72 and 90 days (different sources come up with different figures). This time I think we're somewhere around 150 already. But this level of fragmentation is unprecedented, and the last time a government involving more than three parties had to be formed was in the 1970s.

[freek]

Are the negotiations taking longer than usual or is this pretty typical for Dutch cabinet formations?

No, it is clearly taking longer than usual. The average duration of government formations since 1946 has been somewhere between 72 and 90 days (different sources come up with different figures). This time I think we're somewhere around 150 already. But this level of fragmentation is unprecedented, and the last time a government involving more than three parties had to be formed was in the 1970s.

Different figures, because of different definitions. Formation of government after elections took 88 days on average, between 1946 and 2012. If caretaker governments (Balkenende-III, Van Agt-III, Zijlstra, Beel-II) and regular governments formed without elections (Cals, Drees-II) are included, the average decreases to 72 days.

[DavidB.]

From today onward there will be a three-week "formation holiday". This means the formation will be in the top-three of longest formations, behind the Den Uyl government (1973, 163 days) and the first Van Agt government (1977, 208 days). Balkenende-II (2006, 125 days) and Rutte-I (2010, 127 days) were overtaken this week (so my previous post was partly incorrect in the sense that we hadn't come close to 150 days already).

[mvd10]

And the negotiations have finally restarted a week ago. The CPB also analyzed the first blueprint of a possible government program (they didn't release it ofcourse ), Even though economic issues aren't going to be a big problem for these 4 parties, there still are 3 important issues that need to be resolved: labour market regulation, pension reform and tax reform.

Labour market reform should be a priority for the next government. VVD, CDA, D66 and CU have some differences on labour market issues (CDA criticized the VVD for wanting a "Wild West labour market) but they all generally support more liberal labour laws. But like I said, there still are some issues. The previous government tried to limit the amount of temporary contacts (millions of people work on temporary contracts) by making it harder to hire people with temporary contracts while making it easier to fire people, but that hasn't really worked. VVD wants to repeal the law limiting temporary contracts while making it easier to fire people. D66 wants to completely ban temporary contracts while making it much easier to fire people. CDA and CU want to make it easier to fire people and to have temporary contracts, but they also want to expand disability insurance to self-employed people (they currently don't have to insure themselves against disability), which is opposed by VVD and D66.

They should come to some sort of agreement, but the problem is that they only have 76 seats, and especially CDA and CU have some left-wingers with ties to Christian unions. The negotiators invited the so-called social partners (trade unions and employers' organizations). They still have a lot of influence in the Netherlands, so an informal endorsement from the social partners could greatly help them (a full-blown "social agreement" is very unlikely though). This also is one of the reasons why PvdA participation generally is necessary for (liberal) reforms. Without the PvdA the unions will come out en masse to oppose reforms (like in the 80s or 2003-2006), meanwhile the past 4 years and the 90s have been relatively quiet even though the government implemented some deep reforms during these periods. But a VVD-CDA-D66-CU coalition doesn't include the PvdA, and it looks like Asscher won't be very constructive.

Reforming the pension system is another priority. Everyone who reaches the pension age gets "AOW", which is the main old age benefit. But working people also are forced to save money for their retirement (with some exceptions). This money is invested by the pension funds, but everyone agrees that the system has to be overhauled. VVD and D66 want more individual systems (what did you expect from the 2 liberal parties ?), I'm not sure what CDA and CU want. But I'm pretty optimistic they will come to an agreement on this (with or without the unions).

The third main issue is tax reform, but I don't think the unions will have a lot of say in this. It's also the issue least likely to be resolved imo. First of all there are differences between VVD/D66 and CDA/CU on taxes (CDA/CU want a more family-friendly tax code). You also need a lot of budgetary space for tax reform, but there is less space for investments/tax cuts than previously thought. And even if you combine tax reform with a big tax cut it still will be difficult. The general consensus is that the income tax system should be simpler (lower rates but fewer deductions/tax credits) and that taxes on labour income should be reduced by raising tax credits on labour income, paid for by higher indirect taxes. But who wants to raise the VAT or property tax? Who wants to touch the mortgage interest deduction? I remember seeing a poll on tax reform in another country. A large majority of people though they would be worse off under the new system, even after the pollster told them something like 70-80% would be better off. 2 years ago tax reform failed even though they wanted to combine it with a €5 billion tax cut (in the end they passed the tax cut without any tax reform). I guess it will be easier this time because the government will have a (small) majority in both chambers but I'm not very positive about the chances of tax reform passing the next few years. Maybe corporate tax reform will be easier, but I don't think they will even bother doing that unless Trump manages to massively cut the American corporate income tax or European courts rule some Dutch corporate tax gimmicks as illegal (cutting corporate taxes probably won't be very popular, so they won't do it unless they see it as necessary to boost competitiveness).

(yes I shamelessly copypasted my post from AAD)

Meanwhile a couple of days ago the negotiators suddenly started being optimistic. Things are looking quite well apparently. I wonder how they're going to solve the euthanasia issue (and to a lesser extent also things like multiple parentage, legalizing cannabis cultivation and stuff like that). Whoever folds probably will be destroyed in 2021 (or earlier). They discussed the possibility of trading issues off, but the euthanasia issue became such a symbol of the D66/CU struggle that whoever loses it is in deep trouble. But if anyone folds it's Pechtold imo. He desperately wants to govern, meanwhile the CU would be fine with staying in the opposition. They see governing as something like a bonus. On the other hand Pechtold knows that he's going to be in government anyway, the only other serious option is VVD-CDA-D66 minority cabinet, but apparently nobody wants that, and I wouldn't be surprised if CU and SGP would go in full opposition against a government that signs the euthanasia bill. That actually would be a sneaky way to ensure something that looks like a VVD-CDA-D66-PvdA/GL coalition (with PvdA and GL as "constructive opposition"). But apparently nobody wants a minority government.

[Former President tack50]

Looks like a 3 way minority government (VVD-CDA-D66) would be by far the most effective way, but why don't the Dutch want that?

A minority government, while more unstable would probably also be more flexible. So they could pass everything. So some issues would see a conservative majority with CU and others a liberal (in the european sense) majority with PvdA.

[mvd10]

When we hear minority government we hear instability. Dutch and German people hate that. Meanwhile the last government technically was a minority government (they had a minority in the senate, so they had to cut deals with other parties), and Rutte didn't really like that. Zijlstra (VVD parliamentary leader) has been saying for years that the VVD wants a coalition with a majority in both chambers after 2017. Besides, I think PvdA may want to boost their left-wing credentials a bit, and I doubt CU/SGP would work with a government that signs the euthanasia law. That leaves you with only GL.

And I don't think a minority government can pass bold reforms. The past couple of years were an exception because everyone acknowledged something had to happen. But now the economy is growing and I don't think there is a lot of support for reforms that might be painful for some people. The only way to pass them is to anchor them in the coalition agreement, but when you need to negotiate with parties outside government I don't think there will be much left of it. I don't think PvdA/GL will back some possibly unpopular reforms when they know VVD-CDA-D66 will most of the credit if the reforms succeed (while Wilders and Krol would still vilify anyone who votes for the law).

[mvd10]

Forget my posts about the formation going in the right direction: things started to leak. Leaking usually is a very bad sign in formations. Yesterday a deal on medical/ethical issues leaked. The new euthanasia law won't pass while stem cell research will be expanded. Personally I'd be happy with a deal like that since I'm not really enthusiastic about the new euthanasia law while I strongly support expanding stem cell research. But Segers and Pechtold denied there is a deal on these issues, and they're not happy with this leak.

Today something else leaked. The new government wants to force primary schools to learn their students the Dutch national anthem. Personally I don't have any problems with this. My primary school teachers managed to stuff their lessons with so much useless stuff (why are their salaries much lower than their high school counterparts again?), so why not teach the most outdated national anthem of the world? Seriously, one of the lines is: "The king of Spain I have always honoured". F**ck Spain. Anyway, there isn't much outrage about this leak.

Personally I think Pechtold is behind this. Maybe he's trying to make his base angry so he has a reason to walk out? Perhaps he doesn't want to work with CU after all. But for now the negotiations will continue, so it's still entirely possible that we will have VVD-CDA-D66-CU government by October.

In other news the CPB predicts the Dutch economy will grow by 3.3% this year (twice the German rate ). Thank you Rutte! (to be fair economic growth was anemic in the first few years of Rutte II). But growth predictions always suck (they predicted 2.4% in June lol). If Trump wants 3% growth in the US he can learn a thing or 2 from Rutte .

[DavidB.]

I don't live in NL anymore so won't be updating this as frequently as before, but fortunately I see mvd10 is doing this; great posts! My two cents: the statistics regarding the economy are just great (indeed, thanks Rutte), everyone suspects D66 of the AD leaks, and I already learned the Dutch national anthem in high school and we sung it while standing; should be part of the official curriculum.

[mvd10]

Here we go: 400 D66 members signed a complaint letter about the new government allegedly not making multiple parentage possible. A couple of years ago a commission advised to make it possible for a child to have more than two legal parents. VVD and D66 support it, CDA and especially CU oppose it. The D66 members said they voted for a party that would expand their liberties, not one that would limit them because a minority (conservative Christians) wants it.

This could have been expected. Social issues are the issues on which Pechtold is most in touch with his base, and I don't think D66's base can be "bought off" with a tax cut like VVD voters (who generally are surprisingly progressive on issues like abortion and euthanasia but just don't care). A lot of D66 voters are to the left of their leadership on economic issues (they often list reducing income inequality as one of their top priorities, unlike VVD/CDA/PVV voters), and if they also compromise on ethical issues these voters might very well go to GL.

A poll by EenVandaag also showed bad numbers for D66. 49% considered it unacceptable that the euthanasia law won't pass (44% did). But CU voters also aren't that happy with more stem cell research (44% considered it acceptable, 36% unacceptable). Generally D66 voters see CU as the clear victor while CU voters think the deal was fair to both sides. But 65% of D66 voters (76% of CU voters) would accept a compromise on ethical issues if it was necessary for a new coalition, so there still is hope . I also wonder whether CU could lose. 24% of CU's voters (the ones that don't consider a compromise acceptable) is roughly 1 seat, that could possibly push the SGP to a 4th seat.

[Zinneke]

mvd, what do you think of Baudet reaching the dizzy heights of 7 predicted seats but seemingly not affecting the PVV score? What kind of electorate is he attracting? He seems way too opinionated to attract mere anti-establishment sentiment, so I can't see left-wing voters flocking to him (especially after he drove a feminist into hiding).

EDIT : +1 for Dutch national anthem being taught simply because its a great hymne!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPCozKpuTC8

[mvd10]

At the general elections FvD scored roughly equal among all educational groups while actually scoring higher with upper class and upper middle-class voters (in terms of income). With the PVV it was the other way around. Most FvD voters were too young to vote in 2012 or voted VVD (with a significant minority voting for PVV).

The latest Peil.nl poll shows VVD-CDA-D66 losing 5 seats while FvD gained 5 seats. I suppose FvD appeals to the more right-wing members of VVD and CDA because they sound more reasonable than the PVV. Maybe their more right-wing economic platform also appeals to them, but I'm not sure whether that's an issue for these voters (sadly even wealthy voters aren't really enthusiastic about reducing labour regulation ). Quite a lot of FvD candidates are very vocal about their libertarianism (some even were "famous" movement libertarians and wrote for sites like Vrijspreker) and want to significantly reduce government intervention in the economy, but nobody talked about it (it helps that their MP's Baudet and Hiddema are much more focused on the culture wars and "breaking the party cartel"). In that way the FvD looks a lot like the earlier PVV. In their early years the PVV had a really right-wing economic platform, but they barely talked about it. When Wilders started to talk about economic issues he also took more left-wing positions on them (and he started becoming more popular with . FvD's focus on breaking the system and direct democracy also might appeal to older D66 voters. When FvD was founded a poll showed that quite a lot of D66 voters would consider voting for FvD. But that was before Baudet started being the posterboy of the alt-right and the target of feminist and antifascist organizations.

Peil.nl found out that FvD voters received higher education than PVV voters (but still lower than the average voter), were more likely to be under 35 or over 65 than PVV voters and were more likely to be male. Interestingly enough 49% of FvD voters worried about their financial future (42% of Dutch voters) while they were more likely to have high incomes. But the sample of FvD voters was really small (they were at something like 5-6 seats), so these numbers probably don't mean much. The sample of FvD voters in these polls probably still is too small to say meaningful things. But when they showed crosstabs for polls abouts current events (like a mother being deported while her children still are in the Netherlands) there weren't really any surprising results. Only 21% of FvD voters thought the mother shouldn't have been deported without her children, and 82% thought the mother also should have been deported if the children were with her. So nothing surprising there.

According to peil.nl FvD did win seats from the PVV, but PVV won some seats from other parties. I think most FvD voters are voters who either narrowly went for PVV in the past (most likely 2006 or 2010 when they weren't as toxic) or considered it, but thought the PVV was too vulgar and ended up voting for the VVD or maybe the CDA. This group of people probably is quite wealthy, but not higher educated than average. Non college-educated wealthy voters are extremely Republican in the US for example, and wealthy voters are much more likely to vote VVD than high-educated voters. Maybe FvD voters are the people who would vote for a Sarkozy or a Copé in France (don't they call that droite décomplexée?), but don't quite want to pull the trigger for Le Pen. FvD definitely isn't socially conservative in the traditional sense like some figures in the French right though, but that isn't really surprising (they're still a Dutch party). FvD also scores quite well with young people. I guess this either are the token upper-class young male lolbertarians or people attracted to FvD's obsession with breaking the "party cartel" and changing things.

A (possible) terror attack targeting the Maassilo (an American band called Allah-Las was about to give a concert) seems to have been foiled in Rotterdam. The Dutch police received a very detailed warning from the Spanish police about a possible attack. Initially they arrested a Spanish man, but apparently he didn't have anything to do with it. Later they arrested a 22-year-old man. They don't want to mention his ethnicity. It looks like the threat is over.

[mvd10]

VVD and PvdA have reached a deal on the teachers' salaries, so the cabinet won't fall. The VVD wasn't ideologically opposed to raising their salaries anyway, their main problem was that they had the impression that the PvdA wanted to raise the teachers' salaries and claim all the credit. The teachers will get extra money, but in exchange for that soldiers will also get extra money (yay fiscal responsibility). I guess the VVD now can also claim credit for something, so politically it's a smart deal. CDA, D66 and CU probably will vote for this so it doesn't look like the new balance of power in parliament will be a problem.

[Zinneke]

Thanks for the answer!

I don't think you can compare the FvD to the LR/UMP Hard Right's political figures like Sarko/Copé because of the commitment of the latter to the EU and establishment ordo-liberalism, as well as the social conservative aspect; but I imagine parts of their electorates would be the type to get on well.

I wonder by your extensive description if the FvD is to the PVV what GL is to SP? As in parties that prima facie seem identical in program to the outsider but in fact reflect a large cultural divide found in the Netherlands between inner-city educated people and the ''wijcken'' or depressed industrial regions (I think Joos de Voogd calls this the cultural divide). Wilders's focus on the latter maybe left a gap open for the FvD.

[mvd10]

Josse de Voogd did write an article about VNL (and to a lesser extent FvD):

https://www.trouw.nl/democratie/nieuw-rechts-voor-wie-minder-minder-te-ver-gaat~a5b478df/?

(I believe it's behind a paywall though).

On twitter he wrote this:

https://twitter.com/jossedevoogd/status/880786181751005184

For non-Dutch speaking people (do any non-Dutch speaking people read this anymore ?): He writes that his prediction of the FvD electorate was reasonably correct. FvD scored well in wealthy LPF (Fortuyn's party) municipalities. Upmarket populism like he says. The FvD is like a wing of the PVV, but the wing that currently dominates the PVV is the southern Catholic more economically leftist wing (overlaps witht the SP electorate), and the FvD electorate doesn't really feel at ease there. FvD still does quite well in Limburg though.

[mvd10]

I think VVD-PVV might be a better comparison to GL-SP. VVD voters still are fairly right-wing on immigration and crime (just like PVV voters), but the cultural differences between VVD and PVV voters are huge. Wilders might want to paint the VVD as LREM/D66 light but that's definitely not the case. FvD voters might be quite wealthy, but culturally the FvD voters in Katwijk or Volendam probably still are closer to PVV voters than to the VVD voters in Wassenaar or Laren who may tough on crime, but generally are much more elitist, have much more confidence in the system and are much more positive about the future. FvD voters still are less likely to be college-educated (I suppose college means HBO or University here) than the general populace (small sample sizes though).

In other news:

The NPO (public broadcaster) is searching for people for the upcoming television programme "Raped or Not?". Somehow there is a lot of outrage about this.
Europa League runners-up Ajax (eliminated teams like Schalke 04 and Olympique Lyon last year) got eliminated by Rosenborg before even reaching the group stages. This happened a few weeks after PSV got eliminated by known superpower NK Osijek...
Yet another prominent former VVD politician has problems with the tax authorities.

What a lovely week

[Tintrlvr]

To continue the attempted France analogy above, in terms of voter profile, the FvD is the FN in the 1990s, but the PVV is the FN today.

[parochial boy]

For non-Dutch speaking people (do any non-Dutch speaking people read this anymore ?)

Hey, no, this was a really interesting conversation - Atlas at its best.

My one question to add is, is there any crossover between CU/SGP voters and the Right Wing Populists?

Abusing the French analogy a bit - the FN has always had a Conservative Catholic wing to it, even where the core of the contemporary vote, employés and ouvriers outside urban areas are largely secularised and indiffirent to traditional religious-style social conservatism.

[mvd10]

Probably not between CU and PVV. CU is fairly left-wing on immigration and things like that. Their voters might be a bit more sceptical about multiculturalism but I don't think CU-PVV swing voters really exist, CU voters still really hate proposals like banning the Quran or closing down mosques.

SGP voters (and their party) are very critical of the Islam so they might see Wilders as an ally but I can't see much movement from the SGP to the PVV. If the SGP suddenly stopped existing most of their voters probably would vote for CU and stomach their leftish views on Islam and immigration. Basically all SGP voters live in the Bible Belt and are very religious (this party didn't allow women to run for office until a few years ago), so I think they still see issues like euthanasia as more important than immigration and the EU (both CU and SGP are fairly eurosceptic btw). And the SGP vote doesn't really swing anyway. There are 250.000 people who will vote for the SGP no matter what, and there are 10 million people who never will vote for the SGP. PVV doesn't seem to perform terribly well in our Bible Belt either. The PVV's growth in the Bible Belt probably comes from people who were already voting VVD or CDA.

There are some people who researched how happy and how optimistic voters were. PVV voters were the least happy and the second least optimistic. SGP voters however were the happiest (tied with VVD voters), but they also were the most pessimistic (only PVV comes close). CU voters were slightly happer and slightly more optimistic than the average.

According to the 2017 exit polls the PVV did better with non religious people (13%) and Catholics (19%) than with Protestants (8%) or people with another religion (3%). Almost all SGP voters obviously are Calvinists (Protestants). The PVV probably does better with members of more conservative churches (which are likely to vote SGP) than with members of the more activist Protestant Church of the Netherlands (this is were the CDA's left-wingers come from and they hate the PVV) but overall these numbers aren't very convincing. 

Ideologically there definitely is a lot of overlap between SGP and PVV voters, but the vast majority of SGP voters just isn't going to vote for a "secular" party (or any party that isn't the SGP or CU for that matter). And culturally there also are a lot of differences (the difference in "net happiness" is huge). This guy also found out the PVV barely won votes from the SGP.

[Zinneke]

also worth noting places like Urk now have a sizeable PVV voter base that probably isn't from internal migrants from the rest of the Netherlands. But mvd is probably right when saying they previously voted VVD/CDA at some point.

[mvd10]

The SGP vote share in Urk only increased after 2006 (even the SGP/CU vote significantly increased). CDA dramatically collapsed (from 37% in 2006 to 14% in 2017). VVD went from nothing to 6% in 2012 and back. Only 11% of Urk voted PVV btw, that's still below their national average. The CU collapse in Urk also is interesting. They went from 22% in this very religious municipality in 2006 to 12% in 2017 while not losing that much nationwide (they went from 6 to 5 seats). Maybe they were not happy with CU's leftish positions on immigration and went to the SGP? SGP went from 34% in 2006 to 56% in 2017. It's pretty hilarious how the most right-wing municipality in the country also is the weakest VVD municipality.

[mvd10]

My post on the VVD and the PvdA reaching a deal about teachers' salaries was premature, apparently there is no such deal. According to the Volkskrant VVD leaders told PvdA leaders that they don't yet want to spend more money on teachers. A couple of months ago Asscher (PvdA leader) said he would let the cabinet fall if the VVD didn't agree to spend more money on teachers. This angered the VVD because it's very unusual for a demissionary cabinet to make big changes in policy and because the PvdA would likely get all the credit if the VVD agreed to spend more on education (people would think only Asscher's threats made the VVD agree). Both parties still hope to find a solution.

Some people think CDA, D66 and CU forced the VVD to walk away from the deal because it's still unclear what the budgetary policy of a new cabinet will look like, but sources deny this. They say there never was a deal between the VVD and the PvdA in the first place.

[DavidB.]

Amazing. Sharon Gesthuizen, SP MP from 2006 until 2017 and losing candidate for the chairmanship, wrote a book about her experiences in the SP. She describes how former party leader and longterm chairman Jan Marijnissen was present at all parliamentary group meetings, intimidated MPs (sometimes under the influence of alcohol), and set up Roemer to fail on tv. He talked degradingly about women and made sure the SP only focused on healthcare and bread-and-butter issues, not on the environment, refugees (a subject Gesthuizen found to be relevant), integration, or SMEs. When Gesthuizen, who was used as former party leader Agnes Kant's personal slave even when elected as an MP, suffered from a burn-out, Kant told her that it was her own fault and she better be back at work soon, otherwise her days in the SP would be numbered. A crazy and frightening story, but unfortunately very credible.

Links in Dutch: http://politiek.tpo.nl/2017/08/31/elf-jaar-knoet-jan-marijnissen/; https://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/voormalig-sp-kamerlid-gesthuizen-bekritiseert-marijnissen-in-boek-ik-voelde-me-nooit-veilig~a4514409/

[mvd10]

Everyone already knew the SP was a dictatorship (and their party chairman election was about as democratic as your average election in Zimbabwe or whatever), but this really is interesting. I hope this receives as much media attention as all the VVD scandals (yes, I'm that kind of butthurt hack ). As far as I know there actually were some interesting stories about Meyer's time in Heerlen (dodgy real estate deals), but that was the Telegraaf to be honest. Lately the SP also got in the news for one of their MP's living in social housing ("skew inhabitants") and the party leaders giving themselves a big wage increase. And they still refuse to condemn Maduro (Sadet Karadulut didn't see much wrong with the things Maduro is doing). I understand that the media hates far-right deplorables, but the SP gets off way too easily imo. They're as bad as the PVV on these things. Rutte really should have ruled out working with them, and I really hated Pechtold when he said he preferred a coalition with the SP over a coalition with the CU (luckily Roemer ruled out any coalition with the VVD).

Amazing. Sharon Gesthuizen, SP MP from 2006 until 2017 and losing candidate for the chairmanship, wrote a book about her experiences in the SP. She describes how former party leader and longterm chairman Jan Marijnissen was present at all parliamentary group meetings, intimidated MPs (sometimes under the influence of alcohol), and set up Roemer to fail on tv. He talked degradingly about women and made sure the SP only focused on healthcare and bread-and-butter issues, not on the environment, refugees (a subject Gesthuizen found to be relevant), integration, or SMEs. When Gesthuizen, who was used as former party leader Agnes Kant's personal slave even when elected as an MP, suffered from a burn-out, Kant told her that it was her own fault and she better be back at work soon, otherwise her days in the SP would be numbered. A crazy and frightening story, but unfortunately very credible.

Link in Dutch: http://politiek.tpo.nl/2017/08/31/elf-jaar-knoet-jan-marijnissen/.

And they say I should be "protected" from working 50 hours a week even if I want to and receive what Trump calls a big, fat, beautiful paycheck (though that imaginary future paycheck wouldn't be that big under SP policies to be fair ).

[DavidB.]

I tuned out of all the VVD scandals because there were too many. I only know who was corrupt, not what they did. But yeah, completely agree that the SP deserves much more scrutiny. Everyone is still talking about so-called PVV mailbox pisser Eric Lucassen who never actually pissed in a mailbox.

In other news, an initiative against the new espionage law, which gives security services more powers to wiretap ordinary internet users and was supported by all parties except GL, D66, SP and PvdD in the Senate, has passed the first threshold for the organization of a referendum. The initiative now needs to receive more than 300,000 signatures between 4 September and 16 October. If that is the case, a referendum will be organized. Dutch link here.

It may also be the last referendum, as another leak was published: it was reported that VVD, CDA, D66 and CU had agreed on the abolishment of the referendum law; in turn, D66, the only proponents of the referendum law in theory (I doubt they still care in practice), will get another of its original "crown jewels": the elected mayor. Since the referendum law was intended to fill up a gap in our political system by giving citizens a way to participate between national elections, and given the fact that there are already quite some ways to participate in politics between local elections, this does not make much sense, and some renowned political scientists have already criticized the idea. But as Baudet said: people gave the wrong answer in a referendum once, so now the political elite wants to do away with the instrument altogether. Really sad.

[mvd10]

Yeah, I also disagree with abolishing the referendum law. The referendums aren't binding anyway. If voters really colossaly screw things up you could always ignore the result as a very last resort (and I doubt Dutch voters really would make an objectively terrible decision, the association agreement and EU constitution didn't matter in the grand scheme of things and both eventually still passed without much trouble anyway). Abolishing referendums is very bad PR-wise (except in the parts of Amsterdam where all pundits live, Josse de Voogd is at something with that lol) and sends a rather bad message.