Thanks for the positive feedback!
Some more analysis of this debate (and I'll throw in some more 'subjectivity'): PM Rutte, like many succesful politicians, has the image that he's "made of teflon". No scandal really seems to wear on him. However, it didn't look well for him today. His VVD seems to be highly split on aiding Greece, and his rebuttal of the opposition's idea that Rutte had deliberately lied before the September 2012 election was not very spirited. In the election debate before the general election, Rutte pushed - together only with Wilders - the red button instead of the green one when asked if he would support a new Greek bailout. The Finance Minister of his first government, Jan-Kees de Jager (CDA), had already warned that this might be necessary in March 2012. In November 2012, FM Dijsselbloem also warned parliament about Greece's problematic financial situation. Rutte argued that Greece's financial situation in 2012 was entirely different from its financial situation now, that Greece is only in need of a third aid package because of Syriza's mismanagement, and that the second aid package had been highly succesful. Yet Arie Slob's rebuttal that the very question on Greece in the election debate "didn't fall from the sky" was more convincing to me: after all, nobody really thought that the Greek financial situation was A-OK in September 2012, including all the other party leaders, who didn't rule out a new aid package in 2012. Rutte, of course, won lots of votes with his statement, so for other politicians this must have felt like "payback time".
However, the focus on "Rutte lying" somewhat overshadowed the debate on the deal itself, which was a shame. It became a little childish. Even though I don't support the aid package myself, I really wanted the opposition to move on and to bring up constructive, critical questions, i.e. about the negotiations and about the specifics of the deal. Admittedly, the debate became better (and more boring, which is good, I suppose) when Dijsselbloem was questioned. However, I was shocked by the low level of knowledge on the specifics of the deal of some MPs. Jesse Klaver can't be a dumb guy, but his questions showed a genuine lack of understanding of Dijsselbloem's (indeed somewhat technical) talk about debt haircuts, debt restructuring, the IMF, eurobonds etc., which is conceivable for ordinary citizens, but not for a party leader in parliament. I feel that MPs in, for instance, the UK have much more knowledge of the issues they debate.
On an entirely different note, the extent to which Labour MPs and Dijsselbloem advocated austerity was almost surreal to me. How on earth do these people consider themselves social democrats?
In conclusion, not much will happen to the government, but Rutte's image has become a little more damaged yet again, and he will have to go even further to the right in the next election in order to regain trust of the people he alienated by supporting this deal - and in order to preserve unity within the VVD, especially on his right.
