Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[Dutch Conservative]

Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher will soon declare his candidacy for the PvdA leadership, public broadcaster NOS just announced. He will face current party leader Diederik Samsom and contrarian PvdA MP Jacques Monasch.

It wont even be close. Asscher and Aboutaheb are by far the best politicians within the PvdA. Again the horserace scenario between VVD and PvdA?

[mvd10]

Most voters who left the PvdA probably hate this coalition and I don't think they're coming back for the deputy prime minister. Even though they managed to come back from behind in 2010 and 2012 I just can't see them pulling that stunt again. I'm probably going to look incredibly stupid in five months when the result is VVD 33 PvdA 31 or something like that.

[DavidB.]

It wont even be close. Asscher and Aboutaheb are by far the best politicians within the PvdA. Again the horserace scenario between VVD and PvdA?

Asscher would probably do better in the general election than Samsom because of PvdA-D66 swing voters, but keep in mind most potential PvdA voters who are angry with the PvdA are to the left of the current party line/government policies. They are not going to be convinced by Asscher, who is just as tied to the current government as Samsom and further to the right ideologically. Given the general "ideologicalness" of the PvdA membership I doubt they will vote for Asscher and expect Samsom to win, though anything could happen. Though if Asscher is elected I wouldn't even be surprised by a new two-horse race (f**k you Netherlands if that happens) if Klaver bombs during one of the telly debates. But that's all speculation for now, and it remains unlikely. Even with Asscher as leader an all-time low simply seems inevitable.

Monasch wants to create a category of "registered supporters" that can vote too, similar to what the UK Labour Party did, and thinks the election is "rigged" by Asscher and Samsom.

[Zinneke]

I imagine if it is going to be a two horse race it will be between Rutte and Wilders, in which case there is only one possible winner.

[Dutch Conservative]

I imagine if it is going to be a two horse race it will be between Rutte and Wilders, in which case there is only one possible winner.

Could be, but then we are talking about a 30-30 race. I'm not convinced that PvdA is heading towards an all time low. I think Asscher will do really good, because:
- Klaver is too inexperienced en annoying
- People are tired of Pechtold
- Roemer just isn't a serious alternative
- the same is true for Buma

Don't underestimate the influence of the media. I think there isn't much direction currently in the electorate. The economy is still doing pretty good. Asscher had some achievements to refer to. Left/right in the Netherlands is always about 50/50 (although I think the right just edges out the left most of the elections). Lets be clear: I hope I'm wrong about this.

[DavidB.]

Article (in Dutch) on why a two-horse race between VVD and PVV is highly unlikely.

Summary:
1) The parties are direct electoral competitors rather than being the clear ideological opposites to each other.
2) Dutch voters are volatile but generally move among a certain subset of parties. A PvdA voter may vote for D66 or GL, but won't vote for the PVV or the VVD. In a two-horse race between VVD and PVV, left-wing voters would have to vote for the VVD in order to create the similar left-right dynamics as in 2012 (VVD-PvdA), 2010 (VVD-PvdA), 2006 (CDA-PvdA) etc. This is not likely to happen.
3 and 4) In earlier two-horse races, both candidates for PM had a serious shot at becoming PM. People voted for, say, Mark Rutte to prevent Diederik Samsom from becoming PM, and vice versa. However, even if a party "wins" the election, their party leader doesn't necessarily become PM. There is no way the PVV can end up in a coalition, and there is no way Wilders becomes PM. This renders a potential PVV-VVD two-horse race much less likely than the previous two-horse races.

[DavidB.]

Quite the development in the PvdA: eligible voters can now become PvdA members for 1 month by paying the sum of 2 euros and have full voting rights in the upcoming primary. Meanwhile, candidate for leadership Jacques Monasch today published a provocative article in "the Dutch Guardian" NRC. I'll give you the specifics of the two candidates that already declared, Diederik Samsom and Jacques Monasch, and the candidate that will soon declare, Lodewijk Asscher, in this post.

Diederik Samsom is a physicist and former Greenpeace environmentalist activist. He has been an MP since 2003 and leader of the PvdA since 2012. Being on the left of the party, he was initially hailed as the one who would move the PvdA away from its Third Wayism and make the PvdA a truly left-wing, social democratic party again. Under his leadership, the PvdA obtained a great result in the 2012 election only to end up as the junior partner in an among leftists deeply unpopular coalition government with the VVD. Samsom remained on as an MP in order to be able to voice the PvdA's "authentic" position on issues, as opposed to voicing the government's stance, but has consistently defended the government's decisions. This is intellectually honest, because as PvdA party leader he has been responsible for compromises. However, Samsom cannot possibly distance himself from the unpopular government and because of the fact that he promised change in 2012 whereas little change happened, Samsom is in trouble. The PvdA has consistently been polling in all-time low territory for the last few years. However, being the most progressive candidate in this leadership election, this primary can prove to be useful for Samsom to boost his credentials among progressives by distinguishing himself from Asscher and Monasch. Given the activist, progressive nature of the PvdA membership, I still consider him the favorite to win this primary, although little is known about any candidate's chances and anything could happen.

Lodewijk Asscher has a law degree and is part of the important Amsterdam PvdA machine. He was alderman and, briefly, Mayor ad interim of the Dutch capital before becoming Deputy Prime Minister and Social Affairs Minister in the VVD-PvdA government. Considered the ultimate bureaucrat, Asscher is not one to come up with ideological social democratic talk. However, many believe he would be a very successful candidate in a general election, and polls show that the electorate considers him to be much more Prime Ministerial than Samsom. While being the Deputy Prime Minister and the PvdA's most important politician in the government, Asscher has lower name recognition than Samsom and the government's performance seems to hurt Samsom, the one who promised change, more than Asscher. That said, being Deputy PM in this government cannot possibly help Asscher with a membership that is largely dissatisfied with the government's performance. I suspect the PvdA would do somewhat better under Asscher than under Samsom, but unless the membership decide to throw a rage fit and want to remove Samsom at all costs, it seems unlikely to me that they will elect Asscher, since to most PvdA members I imagine he has all of Samsom's negative points related to the government and none of his redeeming features.

Then there is Jacques Monasch, the least known candidate, who is an economist and a millionaire who has art galeries in Moscow and Amsterdam. Monasch has been a PvdA MP since 2010, and a rather contrarian one at that, for instance by being the only MP who voted to demand that the government immediately accept the result of the Ukraine referendum and withdraw Dutch support for the Association Agreement with Ukraine. An ideologue, he was also the leader of the disastrous 2002 PvdA campaign, the Fortuyn revolution election in which PvdA leader Melkert came off as completely tone deaf and the PvdA obtained an all-time low. This experience seems to have had a profound effect on Monasch's ideological development, because in his NRC opinion article "The arrogant left does not understand the voter", he harshly criticizes the developments on the Dutch left and in the PvdA. "Let's get back in time," Monasch writes in Dutch, "to the reason why the progressive left was once able to attract many voters. The movement stood for a large welfare state, with high-quality public services. The best guarantee for a better life, left-wing voters found. Decent relations between worker and employer, a good education system, outstanding healthcare, and a safe street. And a school, hospital and police office in the neighborhood. (...) Nowadays, the left's focus is on preventing illegality from becoming punishable, the European Union, multiculturalism, and wind turbines. The electorate does not get excited by that. The incomprehension among left-wing politicians is so large that big chunks of the left-wing electorate have been discarded. Natural left-wing supporters do not understand it. Workers are now called low-educated. Hillary Clinton's characterization of Trump's electorate can be heard among the Dutch progressive left too. Instead of taking seriously people's dissatisfaction, many on the left -- politicians, professors and columnists, most of all -- have become shockingly arrogant. It can be different." Monasch advocates for ending tax loopholes for multinational corporations, restrictions on immigration ("Where PvdA, SP and GL should have corrected Merkel's Wir schaffen das, they instead joined her in her hallucinatory Willkommenskultur"), and an EU that is less neoliberal and does a better job at preserving both domestic jobs and democracy ("the civilized Dutch labor market has been corrupted by the EU"). He decries the fact that power on education, healthcare and security has been given away "by the right" and that politicians have lost control over privatized and decentralized institutions. "Especially open societies must indicate where the limits are", Monasch concludes, and "it would be pitiful if the left would only be there for high-educated bureaucrats, for the euro-religious, and for state socialists." An intriguing candidate, in my opinion, who could provoke interesting debates in the upcoming primary. The "open primary/2 euro membership model", advocated by him (although the PvdA denies that they have implemented this model because of him), could greatly benefit him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Quite the development in the PvdA: eligible voters can now become PvdA members for 1 month by paying the sum of 2 euros and have full voting rights in the upcoming primary.

this will end well

(mind you the PvdA is in such a mess that...)

[DavidB.]

I think everybody realizes that, except for the PvdA board apparently... *grabs popcorn*

[DavidB.]

After the last days of news coverage it now definitely appears Asscher is being pushed by the media and he seems favored to win the PvdA primary.

PvdA members can declare themselves potential candidates for the leadership until October 24. Potential candidates need 100 declarations of support in order to avoid a myriad of joke candidates taking part in the primary. On November 7 the official candidates are announced by the party's electoral commission. The primary takes place between November 24 and December 7. The winner of the primary is announced on December 9. The candidate then needs to be confirmed at the party convention on January 14-15. As for the voting system, some type (?) of transferable vote is used and voters need to rank all candidates. The first candidate with a majority wins the primary.

[DavidB.]

So the entire saga about the Association Agreement with Ukraine is starting to get interesting again. It seemed like this referendum would be just another example of the government of an EU member state not taking "no" for an answer, but after EU member states had told Rutte there would be no concessions to the Dutch, opposition parties kept insisting on the government introducing a law that would allow for the retraction of the Association Agreement. D66 were willing to lend the government a helping hand, providing a majority in the Lower House (VVD+PvdA would likely have fallen short of such a majority because PvdA leadership candidate and MP Jacques Monasch also opposes ratifying the treaty after the "no" vote on April 6), but VVD, PvdA and D66 do not have a majority in the Upper House, so any government initiative to ratify the treaty anyway would have stranded there: CDA, GL and CU, other potential cooperation partners for the government, were not willing to budge.

Insiders now expect the government itself to introduce a law in order to retract Dutch support for the Agreement. While the government has emphasized the harmful geopolitical implications of doing so, it does not want to give the impression that the EU is "a train that keeps going forward no matter what the people say." It therefore appears that the domestic democratic damage of ignoring the Dutch "no" has been considered a risk more problematic than the geopolitical damage of acting on the basis of the "no".

If the Netherlands do not ratify the treaty, it cannot go through: all 28 EU member states need to sign it in order for the Agreement to be enacted. The provisional treaty (which has already been enacted) can still remain in place, but this does not include the EU-Ukraine military cooperation component of the Agreement. Whatever happens now is wholly unclear, but this will surely be a setback for the EU.

[DavidB.]

Rutte just gave an emotional press conference in which he calls on opposition parties to accept ratifying the Agreement "in the national interest". Analysts say he never looked as powerless as is now the case in the matter of the treaty. Ukrainian foreign minister Klimkin has had talks with CDA and D66 about the matter, but to no avail with the former party. GL and CU also agree with the CDA. Opposition parties want Rutte to retract the law that would allow for the ratification of the Agreement first and then talk with EU member states about an acceptable replacement for the treaty, whereas Rutte wants to continue with the current treaty and include a declaration that the Agreement is not meant to give Ukraine a pathway to EU membership; he also wants to scrap the part about EU-Ukraine military cooperation. The latter, however, is still unlikely to happen, both because of EU member states' attitudes and because of the Dutch opposition. If no solution is found, the government will introduce a law that would retract Dutch support for ratifying the Association Agreement on Monday.

Something else: no attention for this (OPEN UR EYES SHEEPLE!11!1!!) but important nonetheless: the government has approved of a proposal that would give the Dutch secret services more power to tap people's internet history and phone calls. The proposal existed for a while already, but its approval had been put on hold because of the leaks about the extent of the NSA's spying. The most important advisory body on law proposals, the Raad van State, is critical of the initiative, which would harm ordinary citizens' privacy to an unacceptable extent through the collection of "bulk data", and states more checks on the power of the secret services should be introduced. The law will be discussed in parliament in the coming months. The Netherlands is one of the most avid phone-tapping countries in the world.

[DavidB.]

The CDA senators will support the Association Agreement, so with VVD/PvdA (minus Monasch)/D66 in parliament and VVD/PvdA/D66/CDA in the Senate, the government has a majority and will not introduce a law to retract Dutch support for the Agreement. However, Rutte will still negotiate an additional, legally binding declaration on the Dutch interpretation of the treaty: it is not a pathway to EU membership, there will be no military aid (which contradicts parts of the very same agreement, which is rather strange), and Ukraine will not receive more EU money because of the Agreement (which, I think, contradicts the agreement as well). The Netherlands also wants to make sure there will be no freedom of goods, persons and service with Ukraine. Other EU member states and Ukraine weirdly seem to be okay with all this, which probably means the Dutch declaration isn't worth the paper it's written on.

In turn, the government would have accepted a D66 initiative (LOL) to exclude international agreements from citizens' initiatives leading to referendums. The VVD oppose referendums in the first place and have made it very clear that this referendum does not have any meaning for them, so it is mainly the PvdA that needed to be convinced to change the referendum law. So not only will the Dutch referendum be ignored, the possibility to organize any referendum related to the EU will also be buried. Gotta love Dutch democracy.

[Zinneke]

Almost as farcical as Belgian federalism. Almost. But hey, Rutte gets to say he stood up to Brussels.

Anyway, new polls out, English language source. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/11/vvd-increases-lead-in-latest-poll-of-polls-50plus-marches-on/

It looks like VVD have definitively overtaken PVV.

11 seats for 50+. Like equal with PvdA. Wtf.

[Dutch Conservative]

The CDA senators will support the Association Agreement, so with VVD/PvdA (minus Monasch)/D66 in parliament and VVD/PvdA/D66/CDA in the Senate, the government has a majority and will not introduce a law to retract Dutch support for the Agreement. However, Rutte will still negotiate an additional, legally binding declaration on the Dutch interpretation of the treaty: it is not a pathway to EU membership, there will be no military aid (which contradicts parts of the very same agreement, which is rather strange), and Ukraine will not receive more EU money because of the Agreement (which, I think, contradicts the agreement as well). The Netherlands also wants to make sure there will be no freedom of goods, persons and service with Ukraine. Other EU member states and Ukraine weirdly seem to be okay with all this, which probably means the Dutch declaration isn't worth the paper it's written on.

In turn, the government would have accepted a D66 initiative (LOL) to exclude international agreements from citizens' initiatives leading to referendums. The VVD oppose referendums in the first place and have made it very clear that this referendum does not have any meaning for them, so it is mainly the PvdA that needed to be convinced to change the referendum law. So not only will the Dutch referendum be ignored, the possibility to organize any referendum related to the EU will also be buried. Gotta love Dutch democracy.

Lol, and then they wonder why there is so much distrust in government. Beautiful how D'66 has transformed from a anti-establishment to an establishment party, in 50 years.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The compromise could be just to establish a quorum so 50% of voters are required for a referendum that would change foreign  relations.

[DC Al Fine]

In turn, the government would have accepted a D66 initiative (LOL) to exclude international agreements from citizens' initiatives leading to referendums.

Bahaha. Yeah I did a double take there.

Lol, and then they wonder why there is so much distrust in government. Beautiful how D'66 has transformed from a anti-establishment to an establishment party, in 50 years.

They've long since completed the transition to bland social liberal party I guess.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Remember how the initial dream of D66 was to bring in an American style executive President and FPTP?

[Zinneke]

Remember how the initial dream of D66 was to bring in an American style executive President and FPTP?

Remember when Alexander Pechtold won the leadership election after D66 got trounced in 2002? That's when that movement died.

[mvd10]

Excluding international agreements from the referendum law probably saves us from a TTIP referendum (if the EU and the US ever reach an agreement).

[DavidB.]

Excluding international agreements from the referendum law probably saves us from a TTIP referendum (if the EU and the US ever reach an agreement).

True, that is the upside of this. Such a referendum would really be unbearable. Still, we should have mandatory, binding referendums when powers are transferred from the government to the EU level, like Denmark has (an association agreement or trade agreement would not qualify for a referendum). It has enabled them to strike much better deals and have important opt-outs.

Almost as farcical as Belgian federalism. Almost. But hey, Rutte gets to say he stood up to Brussels.

He doesn't, though. If he did, now that would be farcical.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

the trouble with the Danish system is you get ridiculous grandstanding (on both sides) over random stuff like the EU PATENT COURT (or whatever).

[DavidB.]

the trouble with the Danish system is you get ridiculous grandstanding (on both sides) over random stuff like the EU PATENT COURT (or whatever).

They voted for that. I don't see the issue. The year after, they voted against doing away with one of their opt-outs related to Interpol. No biggie.

[DavidB.]

Remember how the initial dream of D66 was to bring in an American style executive President and FPTP?

Baudet's Forum voor Democratie made an admittedly hilarious campaign video as a parody of that.

D66's original campaign ad in 1967 (which was considered really fancy at the time), in which Hans van Mierlo talks about the waning influence of voters, the immutability of the rules of the political system, leading him to launch D66 in order to change all that.

FvD's campaign ad this time, with the same video of Van Mierlo and Baudet talking about the exact same things (with a similar wording), which are still so true today, proving in a very striking manner how nothing has changed and how D66 failed to deliver what it had promised.

[DavidB.]

Monasch left the PvdA parliamentary group and cancelled his party membership. This means that VVD and PvdA do not have a majority in parliament anymore: they now have 75/150 seats. It won't matter because D66 will support the government whenever necessary.

From the start of the leadership campaign onward, Jacques Monasch had complained about the fact that the PvdA manifesto is launched on the same day as the declaration of the winner of the leadership election. This means that the new PvdA leader has to defend an already existing party manifesto instead of being able to make one themselves, which is why Monasch continued to insist that the election was "rigged": candidates Asscher and Samsom both exerted a considerable amount of influence over the manifesto that will soon be published, so this is fine for them, but Monasch supports an entirely different line on various issues. Now, some say Monasch retracted his candidacy himself while others say the PvdA did not accept him as a candidate. Anyway, as a consequence of this Monasch left the party. This means I will officially not be Comrade David. SAD!

The random nobodies, Oosting and Bosman, have also not been accepted, which means that the leadership election is now officially solely between Samsom and Asscher, politicians who are for 100% in agreement with each other (this is even worded like this by some media, lol).

Monasch will also introduce a motion of no confidence against Rutte/the government for not respecting the referendum result.