Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Would you be willing to open a similar thread about politics in Belgium, JosepBroz? That could be extremely interesting. I know too little about current developments in Belgian politics.

[DavidB.]

The Dutch Left can also be blessed than such a party is taking so many seats off the traditional right-wing parties.

Interesting observation. I made some calculations on the basis of this idea.

VVD+CDA ("traditional right-wing parties"*):
1989: 66
1994: 65
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 67 (+/-, even if the LPF gained 26 seats -- i.e. CDA+LPF+VVD won 94 seats here)
2003: 72 (+5; LPF collapse to 8 seats)
2006: 63 (-9; LPF to 0 but PVV to 9, radical right to +1; VVD+PVV+CDA to 72)
2010: 52 (-11; PVV to 24; VVD+PVV+CDA from 72 to 76)
2012: 54 (+2; PVV to 15; VVD+PVV+CDA from 76 to 69)

It is interesting that the LPF surge in 2002 did not hurt CDA+VVD at all. CDA+VVD achieved their best result in 2003 and were hurt by the emergence of the PVV. However, it seems that the 2006 collapse of the traditional right cannot be explained entirely by the PVV: the LPF had won 8 seats in 2003 too, so the radical right was only at +1 and the traditional right at -9 in the 2006 election. The 2010 losses of the "traditional right" are the losses of the CDA, which largely went directly to the PVV, so this can definitely be attributed to the PVV. The PVV losses in 2012 hardly helped the traditional right, though: radical right at -9, traditional right only at +2.

So yes, we can conclude that the PVV has taken seats off the traditional right-wing parties. However, the score of the combined right has gone slightly up, since the radical right has also taken seats from the left.

CDA+VVD+PVV/LPF ("Traditional right + radical right"):
1989: 66
1994: 65 (but 3 seats for extreme right CD)
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 94 (LPF surge)
2003: 72 (LPF collapse)
2006: 72 (LPF gone, PVV in)
2010: 76
2012: 69

Without taking into account the exceptional year of 2002, we see that the combined right (excluding CU and its predecessors + SGP) has gone from a 65-67ish number of seats to something in 69-76ish territory. Once coalition formation with the radical right is impossible and the radical right takes seats from the traditional right, this, indeed, means that the "share of the cake" of non-right parties in a coalition becomes higher and that the way to a CDA-VVD only coalition (like in 1982-1989) is absolutely closed off. At the same time you have to wonder if it matters when D66 has turned sharply to the right on economic issues. Let's look at the development of actual left-wing parties.

PvdA+GL+SP ("Combined left"):
1989: 55
1994: 44 (D66 surge from 12 to 24 in this election, mainly at the expense of the left)
1998: 71 (D66 -10 cannot solely explain this; turnout dropped by 5 points and reached an all-time low in this election -- maybe it plays a role? Usually one would assume lower turnout benefits the right...)
2002: 42 (and D66 also -7; it is clear that the LPF won a surprising amount of otherwise left-wing voters, presumably mainly PvdA voters; turnout +7 also plays a role here, though)
2003: 59 (back to normalcy)
2006: 65 (and D66 -3, partly explaining the growth of the left; otherwise, the SP won a lot of former non-voters in this high-turnout election)
2010: 55 (and D66 +7; still, it is likely at least some left-wing voters went to the PVV, even if this does not amount to a large number of seats)
2012: 57 (and D66 +2)

On the basis of this calculation one can conclude that D66 should have been included While there is not much voter movement between SP and D66, a collapse of D66 generally benefits the left and vice versa. What is interesting to see is that the LPF hurt the combined left a lot more than the PVV. "Normalcy", for the combined left, seems to be the high-mid-50s. At the same time, a lot of swings occur.

We can conclude that JosepBroz was right in saying that the PVV is taking off many seats of the traditional right while not really changing the situation on the left -- though it remains to be seen if this will change in the next election: polls indicate that SP 2012 voters did move to the PVV this time around. Because a) a coalition between the traditional right and the radical right has become impossible for ideological-distance reasons and b) the traditional right cannot form a government solely consisting of CDA and VVD anymore (though, to be fair, this was impossible in the 90s too, see calculations), the position of non-right (which often means: "left") parties has become more important at least theoretically. We see it in the current government: VVD with 7 ministers, PvdA with 6; VVD with 3 deputy ministers, PvdA with 4. The left has a larger "share of the cake" in the current government than in parliament. One could also assume that this "stronger" position of the combined left would lead to more influence over policy at least when it comes to government decisions; on decisions taken by parliament, however, the balance has shifted to the right because of the fact that traditional right + radical right now are larger than the traditional right was before. It is also good to take into account that the radical right does not always vote along with the traditional right; the PVV often votes along with the left on issues like healthcare. If it were not for the PVV, right-wing economic policies would have passed parliament and the Senate more often.

This, however, ignores the fact that the radical right pulls political discourse and, indeed, all other parties to the right on its pet issues. It also ignores the fact that the PvdA has not really pursued many "left-wing" things in government. Perhaps we should simply conclude that for all the changes in parties' number of seats, very little has actually changed in terms of policy.


*traditionally, the CDA cannot really be seen as a right-wing party (the Netherlands doesn't do the "non-socialist = right-wing" thing) and while this is irrelevant to the point, I still wanted to mention this. It used to be a centrist party, but it has moved to the right under Lubbers and under Balkenende.

[Zinneke]

Would you be willing to open a similar thread about politics in Belgium, JosepBroz? That could be extremely interesting. I know too little about current developments in Belgian politics.

Yes, for sure I will do some, but in terms of what is going on now in Belgium things are relatively quiet, largely because everybody seems to be in some form of power apart from the Greens, the fascists and the communists - all of which will likely benefit next election.
I was going to start by looking at the referendum on whether we should have retained the King post-war (very interesting divide between republicans and royalists), then look at the Vlaams Beweging's rise and fall and rise again under De Wever, in tandem with the Frenchisation of Brussels and explaining the PS supremacy in Wallonia. Im currently moving though so I will write it at the time im settled.

Good post above btw, some proper political theory. I read an economics/political science paper on the subject of tactical voting and game theory in the Netherlands in relation to the Left/Right divide and how it functioned in the 2012 election. I'll try and post it here as its applicable to most PR systems.

[DavidB.]

Sounds great! Who are the authors of that paper, and what is the title?

[Zinneke]

I didn't really know Baudet or his movement. He's likely self-promoting if he doesn't want to join VNL though. That picture says as much.

A lot of N-VAers go or have gone to the Ijzsewakke, its no big deal. It does help you distinguish between the ones who are clearly pro-independence and VB-lite cordon sanitaire avoiders, like Bourgeois, Francken and Jambon, and then the N-VAers who "don't have a hard on for Flemish Independence" like Siegried Bracke and the other public intellegentsia in the party who don't attend. But in all seriousness I wouldn't necessarily call the people who go to IJzerwake fascist, just historically illiterate and sharing the same platform as the clear neo-Nazi's and neo-fascists. But as much as I dislike the right-wing of the Vlaamse Beweging and admire the forgotten left of its Movement, I can't in good faith start calling them all fascists like the PS do.

[DavidB.]

... this proves why we need a thread on Belgian politics. I didn't even know there were any people in the N-VA who are open about not giving a damn about Flemish independence. Very interesting. Not that it's a surprise to me, because they're working hard to simply become a center-right catch-all party without any principles (provided that they ever had them). I also didn't say everyone who attends the IJzerwake is a fascist (Baudet, for one, is certainly not), but the event itself has a certain "brown" feel to it, doesn't it?

[Zinneke]

Well, yes, as it split off from some other ceremony over historical details abouut the extent of Flemish collaboration, which is a tough political cookie. The Vlaamse Beweging spent years trying to rectify the image of your average flamingant due to what happened in WW2, but they did this through different methods : some acknowledged that the Flemish Movement as  a whole was at fault, while others said they had no choice, it wasn't that bad, or it was a long time ago etc. These latter ones are usually the ones who tred the thin line of the IJzerwake, as they also honour some dead Flemish soldiers from the Eastern Front (fighting for the ''Moffen''). And then you have the 1488 Hitler-cultists from organisations like Voorpost - which I imagine you know all to well.

If you want to distinguish between the Flamingants, you can also look at what Flemish Lion they wave. Like the Senyera in Catalonia, each one has a particular significance.

[DavidB.]

In response to this summer's unrest among Turkish communities in the Netherlands, allegedly fueled by Turkish mosques, a parliamentary plurality seek to stop the financing of mosques by the Turkish state, in line with Austria's decision to do this. Most Turkish mosques in the Netherlands are run by Diyanet, a Turkish government organization that falls under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. CDA leader Buma wrote the motion, which was supported by VVD, PVV, ChristenUnie, SGP and VNL. The motion "condemns the long arm of Ankara" and calls on the government to limit the number of people with both a Turkish and Dutch nationality (good luck with that...). Prime Minister Rutte already said it will be difficult to limit Diyanet's influence because of the freedom of religion, so it is doubtful anything will actually happen. Next week, Deputy PM Asscher will present a letter in which he lays out the possibilities of tackling the "problematic" foreign financing of religious organizations in the Netherlands.

A plurality also want the government to make the EU end Turkey's EU accession benefits.

[mvd10]

So, a few points from the VVD manifesto (which will be presented in a few hours):

€1 billion more for defense
€10 billion in tax cuts for households and businesses
mandatory lessons about Dutch values (LGBT rights, gender equality, separation of church and state) for immigrants

GDP is roughly €700 billion so the tax cuts will be like 1.5% of GDP (actually that's roughly the size of the Bush tax cuts for American readers) and the extra defense money will be 0.15% of GDP (but defense spending still will be nowhere near the NATO target). These are just a few points Rutte gave away, the actual manifesto will contain much more. 10 billion in tax cuts is quite ambitious and the extra money for defense is needed, so I like it so far. According to the CPB increased spending or tax cuts needs to be matched equally with tax hikes or spending cuts so they have to pay for it through spending cuts (or tax hikes).

[Dutch Conservative]

I think these are points that many people will like, but I'm still not sure how many people will trust the VVD. It's very obvious that the VVD steers to the right before the election, in an effort to draw away support for the PVV. In the campaign that will be an issue for opposition parties. If the CDA had a charismatic leader, the votes would be up for grabs. Maybe D'66 will profit the most, when they see a chance to profile themselves as the 'real liberal party'. For now, I still think most people will buy it, because of the PM-bonus and because Rutte is pretty good in debates. Today the VVD used the term 'silent majority', in an effort to gain votes among middleclass voters. Also, they talk much about values ('normen en waarden'), a theme that used to belong to the CDA. 

Yesterday DENK launched a plan to fight racism and discrimination. One important part of the plan is the forming of a racism-policeforce. They also want to change names of streets that refer to national heroes like Michiel de Ruyter of J.P. Coen. I think these crazy plans will make this party even less attractive for many voters. They might end up with 1 or 2 seats.

[DavidB.]

Yesterday DENK launched a plan to fight racism and discrimination. One important part of the plan is the forming of a racism-policeforce. They also want to change names of streets that refer to national heroes like Michiel de Ruyter of J.P. Coen. I think these crazy plans will make this party even less attractive for many voters. They might end up with 1 or 2 seats.

Obviously the tactic is to attract media attention in order to improve name recognition and popularity among voters with an immigrant background. The racism police is probably a more serious idea, but the street name thing is basically bait and the media love to take it. DENK are simply employing PVV tactics on the other side of the political spectrum; consider the street names the equivalent of the PVV's proposed Qur'an ban. People who are turned off by their shenanigans would never vote DENK in the first place and are not the party's target audience.

As for the VVD's election manifesto, it was surprisingly different from last time. In 2012 they simply went for the PVV light thing, but it makes sense for the VVD to try and distinguish themselves more from the PVV in an election where VVD and PVV find themselves in a head-to-head race; copy cats generally lose because people prefer the original brand. I found all the VVD's talk about the "optimistic majority" to be slightly cringeworthy, but it will probably work wonders with many voters together with Rutte's enthusiasm, particularly since Wilders does come across as overly negative and angry, and who doesn't like optimism instead? Then there is the norms and values talking point, which fits perfectly with the VVD's new brand and will help at keeping aboard generic right-wing voters who opted for the CDA in the 2000s and before. In terms of content there were not a lot of surprises in the manifesto, except for the fact that the false pretenses of the VVD masquerading as some sort of PVV light, for which many people fell in 2012, have been dropped to an extent I had not expected.

[DavidB.]

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.

[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.