Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Weekly peil.nl poll has PVV 1 seat down (to 40), VVD 1 seat up (to 21).

More interesting:

"Do you want the Netherlands to also [like the UK, DB.] organize a referendum on whether the Netherlands should stay in the EU?"
A majority are in favor of a referendum.


"If a referendum would be organized in the Netherlands on whether the Netherlands should stay in the EU, how would you vote?"
For leaving = 43%
Against leaving = 44%
Don't know / no answer / wouldn't vote = 13%.

Meanwhile, only 37% hope the UK will leave, while 48% hope the UK will stay in. The UK is an important ally of the Netherlands within the EU, on financial, strategical and integration-related themes. The UK leaving would weaken the Dutch position within the EU. And since it is not too likely that the Netherlands will leave as well, it makes sense for people who want the Netherlands to leave to hope that the UK will stay in.

[DavidB.]

The debate on euthanasia in the Netherlands has been started again by consequence of a tv documentary in which a woman with semantic dementia, for whom it was obvious that she did not remember signing the document in which she agreed to euthanasia (which she had signed in 2010), was euthanized. This clearly happened under pressure of her husband: all the time, the motto was "let's do this!" (but in a more 'popular' Dutch version), which was literally uttered. It was clear she still enjoyed her life. When she almost received the lethal injection, she finally said "this is terrible" -- upon which the euthanasia still took place and her husband said that "it was good that it happened so quietly". Absolutely terrifying, and it sparked a debate that was held before, in which experts who had initially advised the government to legalize euthanasia now said the Netherlands might have gone too far. In an op-ed in De Volkskrant, it was stated that "the documentary might have been a turning point in the debate about euthanasia." In the NRC Handelsblad, someone wrote that "in the Netherlands, the formula "Let's do this!" is considered a legitimate argument to diagnose 'unbearable and hopeless suffering'."

At this point, the vast majority of the population agree that euthanasia should be legal in some form; the debate is about whether we have gone too far in allowing euthanasia and whether we are too quick in seeing euthanasia as "the legitimate way out". An expert also stated he thinks Dutch palliative care is less developed than in other countries because of the Dutch tendency to euthanize.

[DavidB.]

SGP and CU are not really the parties to go "ballistic" over anything, but yes, they were shocked, and both CU and SGP wrote parliamentary questions to Health Minister Edith Schippers (VVD) about it. Apart from that, political parties have mainly been silent about it, apart from D66 MP Pia Dijkstra, who wrote an article that defended the Levenseindekliniek. I get the impression that this is sort of an awkward topic for the secular political parties, because euthanasia is seen as part of the package of Dutch "progressive acquirements" (in the category of abortion, gay rights, prostitution) that should not really be debated. Which is a shame, I think, because what happened in the documentary (and what happens in the Levenseindekliniek) is a legitimate subject for debate even if one is in favor of legal euthanasia.

Ironically, the documentary ("De Levenseindekliniek" = "The End of Life Clinic", referring to an organization that euthanizes people whose doctor doesn't want to do it) was partly meant to create public support for extending the circumstances under which euthanasia is legal; in that regard the documentary has proved to be an epic fail.

[DavidB.]

Time for an update.


The PVV has presented its flyer for the "no" campaign.

"On April 6th, vote against the agreement between the EU and Ukraine. Your vote against the agreement means a vote:
- against even more European Union
- against billions for a bankrupt country
- against cooperation with a corrupt regime
- against visa-free travel
- against the elite in Brussels"

Meanwhile, the PvdD has successfully pushed the government into proposing a law that would make it illegal for people with a history of animal abuse to have animals.

Yesterday, a "Blackfish"-like documentary about the "Dolfinarium" was broadcasted. It became pretty clear that the Dolfinarium is lying through its teeth about the conditions in which the dolphins are kept, and that the Dolfinarium is more of a circus than a zoo (the difference being the educational goal -- clearly dolphin shows are entertainment). This same government has outlawed circuses keeping "wild animals", so here's to hoping that these shows will end. The PvdD, of course, has already requested a parliamentary debate on this.

[DavidB.]

David a question. When most people think of the Netherlands, after they think of clogs and bikes, rhetll think of drug laws. But as I understand the government is walking back on the liberalisation of the Kok years? Is this true? What are the different parties perspective on the drug issue?

The liberalization policy does not stem from the Kok years. It was already introduced in 1976, by the center-left Den Uyl government (under KVP minister Van Agt, remarkably). In recent decennia, starting in the early 1990s, there has been a tendency to restrict the freedom of "coffee shops" (places that sell soft drugs) to operate. In that sense, as on many other political issues, the focus has shifted more toward "law and order". Especially from 2002 onward, the police have been pursuing a "war on drugs" to prevent people from growing weed on an industrial scale themselves. Apart from the shift toward more "law and order" oriented policies in general, this has to do with the fact that the Justice portfolio has generally been in the hands of CDA and VVD. The CDA is against the "toleration" policy altogether (note that the KVP was more progressive on this in 1976 than the CDA now) and the VVD supports the current policy, but is against legalization and mainly focuses on combatting crime and annoyance that is linked to the policy.

The low point in this story has been the Rutte-I government's proposal to introduce a "weed pass", which would mean that coffee shops were to become "clubs" for members only; foreigners would not be able to purchase any soft drugs anymore, and Dutch nationals would have to have a weed pass in order to do so, which would also mean one could not purchase weed anonymously anymore. It was introduced in the southern border regions as a pilot and would theoretically reduce drug tourism in these border regions, but in practice it led to a lot of street drug dealing, crime (people are simply going to buy drugs from Moroccan gangs instead of coffee shop owners) and annoyance for people in residential neighborhoods. The policy was a spectacular failure and the Rutte-I government fell before the policy was introduced nationwide, and it has now been scrapped altogether. The Rutte-I government did succeed in outlawing "growshops" (because some tourist jumped out of a window and died): psychedelic mushrooms are now illegal. Also, coffee shops closer than 1 kilometer to schools have closed (which, as you can imagine, is pretty nonsensical in the city centers of Amsterdam and Rotterdam).

It must be said, however, that the recent Dutch "war on drugs" was mainly the shtick of former Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten (VVD, 2010-2015) and his deputy minister Fred Teeven, who both had to step down last year. The new minister, Ard van der Steur, seems less interested in being a hardliner on this issue. The Rutte-I government was "anti-drugs" altogether and the parties in the Rutte-II government have not compromised on issues, but instead chose to let the VVD decide altogether on some issues while the PvdA gets to decide on other issues (but weirdly, this doesn't necessarily correspond with having a minister of that party; Foreign Affairs is VVD controlled but has a PvdA minister). On Security and Justice issues (to which the drug policy belongs, which is already quite telling) the VVD is in charge, so the PvdA, which is in favor of legalization, doesn't get a say in the government's policy.

All parties on the left + D66 are in favor of legalization. The VVD is in favor of the toleration policy but focused on law, order and restricting the "space" in which coffee shop owners can operate. The PVV isn't clear on the issue, presumably because it doesn't want to come across as "soft on crime" (so it is officially against the "toleration policy") while not really being interested in outlawing coffee shops altogether either (most people don't want that, though according to polls outlawing drugs seems to be remarkably popular among PVV voters, presumably because using soft drugs is still seen as something "left-wing"/middle-class/progressive/"hippie-like" by many). CDA, CU and SGP are for closing all coffee shops and making drugs illegal. Though indicative of the political atmosphere regarding drugs, all recent policy changes (except for the failed weed pass policy) have been relatively minor. The toleration policy isn't going to be reverted, but I don't think soft drugs will be legalized soon either. The generational gap on this issue is quite large (a recent number 1 hit's line "all teenagers say yes to MDMA" sparked minor outrage in The Hague but has some truth in it), so eventually it will probably be legalized, but it might take another decennium or so.

And apart from the theoretical perspective, it is probably also good to keep in mind that soft drugs are already readily available for everyone living in a city; the nearest coffee shop is closer to my house than the nearest supermarket. Therefore, changing the status-quo doesn't have so much priority for people. Legalization would change much for coffee shop owners, but not for most people.

[DavidB.]

The VVD doing clickbait and edgy memes: "10 instances of nanny statism that are so yesterday. Especially the third one you will not believe."

"1. Free plastic bags? No, they are outlawed! Good luck at the Chinese restaurant!
2. With your old car in the city center? Forget about it!
3. Launching balloons on your birthday? Illegal!
4. On Meatless Monday, everything in the cafetaria is vegetarian!
5. Setting off fireworks on New Year's Eve and having fun? Nope!
6. The government wants you to share your clothes.
7. You cannot ride a scooter anymore.
8. ... and you will be freezing at the terrace.
9. Mandatory flags in your snacks so you know where the meat is from.
10. The shop is open, but the door has to be closed to protect the environment.

It is nothing new: politicians think something is not right and immediately want to ban it. But we think the rest of the Netherlands should not be bothered by politicians' opinion of balloons and beautiful old cars. Let's keep it a bit fun, shall we?"

People probably like this, but I find it cringeworthy (most of these ridiculous things are just ideas that one party -- generally the PvdD -- has, not actual policy).

[DavidB.]

Just for fun: election results by polling station (on a map) for Provincial/Senatorial elections 2015: click. NRC had this for the 2012 and 2010 Tweede Kamer elections too, but if I click on the polling stations I don't get a result anymore, so I did not include them here.

[DavidB.]

Is the scooters in relation to the weird habit the Dutch have of riding scooters in bike lanes? Because that really needs to be clamped down on tbh

I think some parties in Rotterdam wants to ban scooters in the city center because of the environmental issues (and the noise), the safety aspect being less relevant (but they might care about that too).

Generally, within built-up areas, scooter drivers drive on the road instead of in bike lanes, whereas outside built-up areas they drive in the bike lanes. However, municipalities have the authority to decide on this and the rules, indeed, frequently differ, which is very confusing. As a cyclist I find sharing the bike lanes with scooters, who often drive at a speed more similar to cars, annoying and at times dangerous, so I totally agree with you.

[DavidB.]

Latest EenVandaag referendum poll (end of February) has No at 58%, Yes at 42% among people who are sure to vote. 22% of the electorate (including yours sincerely) are still undecided.


Reasons for people to vote for: against Russia, good for the economy, for the EU, trade, support, better ties, and cooperation.

Reasons for people to vote against: against Russia (in the sense that our ties with Russia will deteriorate if the Agreement will become reality), EU critical, corruption, EU enlargement, the Agreement will cost us money, and Greece (presumably people are still angry that the government decided to vote for the latest deal to save Greece).

Another poll (published today) has No at 57 and Yes at 43, so roughly similar numbers.

[DavidB.]

... and apparently "no" has regained the momentum.


Left = including don't knows
Right = excluding don't knows

37% say they will surely vote, another 28% say they will probably vote = 65% together. This will of course be lower irl. I think turnout will be in the low to mid 40s.

D66 has presented its campaign posters:

"Safe external borders
Strong democracy
Free trade
Vote FOR on 6 April"

[DavidB.]

Haven't they been in power from r the last three terms, or was that just all one big nightmare.

I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean.

[DavidB.]

Article by the BBC on the referendum.

And a less objective one by someone who works at a Kiev think tank at Politico Europe.

Received my voting pass today. Leaning to vote for the Agreement now.

[DavidB.]

Seen today: referendum campaign posters by the tiny "Jesus Lives" party. Message: "Jesus wants you. Not EU-kraine!"

[DavidB.]

Hurrah! I have finished my e-learning course for volunteering in the polling station. Apparently it is illegal to leave a D66-balloon tied to the table that we use for handing out the ballot papers to the voters. Also, we should check that we have  received the correct ballot papers some time before opening at 0730, not afterwards.

You can do that online now? That's convenient.

[DavidB.]

The latest Peilingwijzer. Trends: PVV clearly downward, VVD clearly upward, GL slightly upward, D66 slightly downward.

During the last months, the PVV has had a clear lead, but the VVD's numbers are improving at the expense of the PVV now. I don't know why, but I suspect it's because of the fact that Greece + refugees + terrorists have gotten slightly less attention recently (until this week at least), driving VVD-leaning potential PVV voters voters back to the VVD. D66 has had quite some negative press recently because of MP Hachchi's bizarre, sudden resignation + Pechtold hiding the fact that some rich businessman payed for him and fellow D66 MP Kees Verhoeven to fly to Ukraine in his private jet (in the context of the referendum campaign), which he should have declared.

[DavidB.]

Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher (PvdA) just called the prospect of the PvdA entering a coalition with the VVD after the 2017 election "unlikely". Together with Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb and Amsterdam mayor Eberhard van der Laan, Asscher is seen as one of the top candidates to replace Diederik Samsom as PvdA leader, though it remains to be seen whether Samsom will be ousted.

The fact that Lodewijk and Eberhard might replace Diederik (three names that should literally be in the top-10 of poshest Dutch names) says enough about the PvdA and its problems.

[DavidB.]

Voting compass for the referendum here.

Q1: Ukrainian and Dutch companies should be allowed to freely establish themselves on each other's territory. (Helemaal mee eens = Fully agree, Helemaal niet mee eens = fully disagree)
Q2: In order to limit illegal immigration, the EU should be allowed to give money to Ukraine
Q3: The Agreement supports Ukrainians who want to choose a pro-European course
Q4: Because there is too much corruption in Ukraine, the EU should not give financial aid
Q5: The Agreement with Ukraine undermines wages in the Netherlands
Q6: The EU should not invest in a council of ministers, public servants and experts from the EU and Ukraine
Q7: The EU should be allowed to give money to Ukraine in order to better protect the environment
Q8: It is good for Ukraine to participate in military operations led by the EU
Q9: Entrepreneurs from Ukraine and the EU should be free to invest in each other's territory
Q10: Opening the borders with Ukraine is a threat to employment in the Netherlands
Q11: The Agreement stimulates employment in Ukraine, so Ukrainians will not come to the Netherlands to find jobs
Q12: The EU should be allowed to support Ukraine financially in order to make the production of nuclear energy in Ukraine safer
Q13: Ukrainian companies should be treated similarly to companies from EU member states when there is concurrence for government orders
Q14: The Netherlands needs to reject the Agreement in order to prevent Ukraine from coming closer to full EU membership
Q15: The Agreement will make the conflict between Russia and Ukraine worse
Q16: The EU is already big enough, I'd rather see countries leave than new countries enter
Q17: The Netherlands needs to accept the Agreement in order to limit Russia's influence in Ukraine
Q18: The Agreement with Ukraine is bad for the Dutch economy
Q19: Travellers [not referring to gypsies, DavidB] between EU countries and Ukraine should be able to travel without a visa
Q20: By striking an agreement with Ukraine, the import of oil and gas from Russia will be endangered
Q21: The EU should not be allowed to give money to Ukraine in order to support weaker sectors of the Ukrainian economy
Q22: The Agreement with Ukraine should be accepted, because free trade will foster democracy in Ukraine
Q23: The EU should continue to levy import tariffs on Ukrainian products
Q24: The Agreement with Ukraine jeopardizes social security in the Netherlands
Q25: The EU and Ukraine should cooperate in order to combat terrorism and organized crime
Q26: It should become easier for Ukrainian employees to work in the EU with a temporary labor contract
Q27: The Agreement is a good way to improve human rights in Ukraine
Q28: The EU should not strike agreements with other countries as long as the economic crisis persists
Q29: The agreement with Ukraine will bring more stability to the European external borders
Q30: It is good for Ukraine to adjust its laws to European rules.

A bit of a stupid test sometimes, because some questions are simply about facts, not about opinions. However, I found it fun to do. Got a score of almost 50% in favor of the Agreement myself.

[DavidB.]

Here's a video (the third one on the page) of Richard Sakwa, a well-known scholar of Russian politics (known to be relatively "pro-Kremlin"), explaining on Dutch television (in English) why he would advise the Dutch electorate to vote against the Agreement and debating with Deputy Prime Minister Asscher. Sakwa's is obviously a minority opinion among academics in his field, but I found it an interesting fragment nonetheless, even if I agree much more with Asscher.

[DavidB.]

Dutch parliament just observed a minute's silence because of the attacks in Brussels. Speaker Khadija Arib: "Because we are historically connected. Because they are our dear neighbors. Because Brussels is the heart of Europe, where we stand for the same values: openness, safety and freedom - the freedom to believe, but also the freedom not to believe. And exactly these core values came under crossfire this Tuesday."

Meanwhile, the fact that one of the attackers was deported from Turkey to the Netherlands when he attempted to go to Syria might lead to new problems for Security & Justice Minister Ard van der Steur (VVD), who has been minister for only a year yet has had a lot of embarrassing moments already.

[DavidB.]

I hope you and the people close to you are okay, JosepBroz. Aren't you in Brussels?

Security & Justice Minister Ard van der Steur (VVD) is in dire straits. Ibrahim el Bakraoui, one of the perpetrators of the Brussels attacks, had been deported from Turkey to the Netherlands in July 2015 because Turkey knew there was a terrorist threat. The Dutch got an intelligence notification with "very urgent" on it, but did not open it and let El Bakraoui go. Van der Steur blames Turkey, but that is not considered very convincing. What makes it worse, German terror suspect Samir E., to whom Brussels terrorist attacks perpetrator Khaled el Bakraoui sent his last text message, also landed in the Netherlands in July 2015 without any problems -- on the very same flight as Ibrahim. 

In short, to put it bluntly, people get the impression that the Netherlands has become the gateway for terrorists to the EU because the Security & Justice Ministry, which has been a merger of several ministries since 2010, is incompetent. This has to do with the fact that there is a toxic culture in the ministry, which is too large and basically unmanageable for ministers.

It is likely that Van der Steur will have to step down. This has the potential to become a scandal that can make the government collapse, especially given Van der Steur's extremely bad explanation in parliament, so it would be better for the government if he steps down by himself.

[DavidB.]

The question is will the VVD be prepared to let him go now. It would be the second minister within this ministry to step down and VVD may want to avoid that. It does show the failure that the ministry has been. After the next elections the police will go back to the interior ministry.

Depends on how big of a story this is going to be, and how much pressure there will be. The VVD, indeed, might want to avoid Van der Steur from having to step down, but that would still be an infinitely better outcome for the VVD than the government collapsing. Early elections before the summer (or right after the summer, like in 2012) would be an utter disaster for them. It would totally ruin the positive story they are preparing for 2017 ("it wasn't always easy, but we finished the job and we have been responsible").

[DavidB.]

New TNS Nipo poll: 32% "definitely" intend to vote, 25% will "probably" do so. 54% are against, 36% in favor and 10% don't know.

The government has stepped up its game and launched a last-minute campaigning plan, which includes a media offensive (national newspapers, talkshows) and sending tweets from the new account @oekraine6april. Apparently, the ministers don't like talking about Ukraine and try to dodge their responsibilities. All this has been leaked to RTL, which published it. The underlying assumption of the government's strategy, the idea that the government can convince people to turn out and vote for, seems a bit misguided. It might as well lead to an anti-government backlash and drive up the vote among people who oppose the agreement. The government should probably have let the parties deal with it. The only reason it does not do so seems to be that this would be "not done" vis-à-vis the EU (plus some typical Mark Rutte hybris, perhaps). However, it seems foolish for an unpopular government to try and promote an unpopular agreement, and its foolishness might come at a price.

Rutte now stated that if it were up to him, Ukraine would never become an EU member. Comparisons with Rutte stating (in September 2012) that if it were up to him, no euro would be spent on Greece anymore were low-hanging fruit, of course.

At this point, this referendum has "2005 European constitution scenario" written all over it. The Dutch will vote against, and the low turnout escape route seems to be closed off by all the media attention (and the government's campaign): the referendum will be the number 1 issue during the coming days.

[DavidB.]

My prediction for tomorrow: 40% for, 60% against, 37% turnout.

Polls are open from 7:30 until 21:00.

[DavidB.]

Just voted against the agreement.

Turnout in Rotterdam was 3% at 10AM. In the European Parliament election in 2014 (total turnout Rotterdam: 35.1%) it was 4.3%.

[DavidB.]

It is currently the question whether the 30% turnout threshold will be reached. Most analysts expect turnout to be barely over 30% on the basis of the incoming figures, but these seem to be strikingly low -- Amsterdam had only 6.5% turnout at 1PM. I take all #analysis with many grains of salt, including pollster Maurice de Hond's remark that if turnout will not be over 13% at 4PM in the big cities, the threshold will not be reached. Pollster, political science professor and professional attention whore André Krouwel expected turnout to be around 50%. People should know whom they cannot take seriously anymore in the future.

I personally think there will be a larger difference between minority turnout (except for Jews -- all three of us are sure to vote...) and Dutch turnout in this election, because Muslim and (certain) Surinamese minorities have less of a reason to vote than in regular elections. Hence, the discrepancy between turnout in large cities and turnout outside the large cities will be larger, which is why I think low turnout figures in the cities do not necessarily imply that the threshold will not be reached (although it is obviously relevant), but again, you should also take this #analysis with some grains of salt...