After hours of discussion
By Political editors RTL News·1 hour ago·Adapted: 3 minutes ago
© ANPRTL
The coalition parties PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB have reached an agreement on asylum measures. The emergency law fervently desired by the PVV has been definitively off the table, but other strict measures in the field of asylum will be introduced. The Council of Ministers must also approve the plans.
The biggest rivals within the coalition, PVV and NSC, already agreed this week on a compromise on asylum measures. VVD and BBB, who only joined afterwards, agreed to this after hours of consultation. The consultation started at 4 p.m., around 12:30 a.m. PVV leader Geert Wilders reported on X that the parties had reached an agreement.
The final content will be presented this morning after the Council of Ministers. According to sources from our political editorial team, the measures have hardly been adjusted, but it has been agreed that legislation will be submitted at the same time to prevent chaos with shelters.
When leaving the Catshuis, none of the party leaders wanted to provide a substantive explanation. According to VVD leader Yesilgöz, ‘there is something beautiful’. NSC faction leader Van Vroonhoven said after the hours-long consultation: “We have reached an agreement and we can move on.”
See how party leaders responded here:
They did not want to say much about the consultation.
Previously leaked
A draft document seen by RTL Nieuws states that asylum permits will be abolished indefinitely, there will be border controls from the end of November and dozens of extra cells for rejected asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
Family reunification will also be limited: subsequent travel by adult children and unmarried partners will no longer be possible. Convicted asylum seekers can more easily lose their residence status. The plan is also for parts of Syria to be declared safe, so that Syrians could be sent back. It is still uncertain whether this will hold up in court.
In addition, the coalition wants to quickly abolish the dispersal law and municipalities will no longer be given the task of housing status holders.
Legislation at the same time
The final package will be presented later after the Council of Ministers. The result of a long evening of negotiations is the agreement that several pieces of legislation will be submitted simultaneously. For example, the dispersal law will only be abolished if inflow-restricting measures also come into effect.
The task of housing status holders will only be canceled once the government has completed plans for the establishment of so-called ‘transition locations’, which are places where status holders can stay temporarily.
In this way, the coalition wants to prevent problems from arising in municipalities, with shelter and housing.
The stricter measures are a compromise. The PVV has to accept that the cabinet will not introduce an emergency law after all. This emergency measure, in which the cabinet can intervene without asking parliament for approval in advance, was unpalatable for coalition partner NSC. Support was also uncertain in the Senate, which would later have to ask the cabinet for approval.
‘Deal is a boost for party-less Schoof and a loss for Wilders’
“This deal has averted a coalition crisis, a cabinet crisis,” says political reporter Fons Lambie. “This is a boost for Prime Minister Schoof, the party-less Prime Minister without real power, he has taken control and brought the parties together. For NSC, where there was a lot of resistance to the emergency law, it is also a relief: temporary party leader Van Vroonhoven has adjusted the main agreement and kept the faction together – while party leader Omtzigt is still at home sick. At the same time, the party will receive a lot of criticism from the opposition about the strict measures.”
“In terms of content, this is a loss for Geert Wilders. He wanted that emergency law, but it will not happen. He opts for the compromise, for the preservation of the coalition.”
“VVD and BBB were sentenced to a supporting role, which is still taking some getting used to for the VVD. Partly due to questions from the VVD about the legal feasibility, it still took a number of hours before the deal was finalized. For example, it has been stipulated that measures will be taken simultaneously introduced to prevent municipalities from being confronted with chaotic scenes.”
“But a deal in the coalition does not automatically mean a strict migration policy. The key is the implementation. Will the legislation pass the Senate unscathed? Will it survive in court? This deal will now put a lot of pressure on asylum seekers Minister Faber. She did not participate in these discussions, as a minister she achieved little results – wrong statements, at odds with officials, hassle in the House. To translate this deal into legislation, Minister Faber will have to do everything he can.”
After Hours of Discussion: A Comedy of Errors, Politics Style!
Well, folks, it seems our beloved coalition parties—PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB—have finally reached an agreement on asylum measures. I mean, after hours in the political equivalent of a dentist’s waiting room, you’d hope they’d at least manage to agree on a pizza topping or something! But alas, the emergency law that the PVV was clamoring for is still buried six feet under, while other arguably draconian measures are already in the pipeline.
A Riveting Tête-à-Tête
Imagine the scene: Geert Wilders and other party leaders huddled together in a dimly lit room, negotiating asylum measures with all the intensity of a group of teenagers trying to decide on a movie. “No, we can’t watch ‘Titanic’ again!” You can almost picture the clashing egos, the sighs, and those awkward silences as they waited for the clock to strike 12:30 AM. All that’s missing is popcorn, right?
But while our political leaders were busy trying to avoid chaos, what have we got? Border controls by the end of November. Oh joy! And get this—the plan to declare parts of Syria ‘safe’ is so ambitious it puts a toddler trying to assemble IKEA furniture to shame. Good luck convincing the courts that’s a sound decision, lads.
What’s on the Table?
Now let’s look at what’s actually in this agreement. Apparently, asylum permits will be abolished indefinitely. Yes, you heard that right! Like headers on a bad fashion blog! There will also be extra cells for rejected asylum seekers and restrictions on family reunifications. It sounds less like a policy and more like a dystopian novel where everyone is just trying to survive until the next dystopian plot twist.
For a coalition that seems to thrive on compromise, they’ve really outdone themselves—very much like a magician pulling five rabbits out of a hat, except all the rabbits are “no comment” and “don’t ask me, mate!”
A Political Ballet: Solos or Group Numbers?
VVD and BBB seem to have taken on a supporting role in this political ballet. In fact, they’re practically the cast of ‘Swingers’ – just trying to make everyone else look good! All four parties agreed to some semblance of order to prevent what could have been a municipal circus act, complete with juggling refugees and housing crises. But hey, that’s politics for you! Who knew they’d save their best performances for the Council of Ministers meeting?
“Beautiful”? Or Just Frustrating?
And VVD leader Yesilgöz claims there’s “something beautiful” about the outcome. Are we sure we’re not talking about the painted word ‘beautiful’ scrawled awkwardly in crayon across a kindergarten wall? The NSC faction leader, Van Vroonhoven, chimed in with a classic, “We can move on,” as if they’ve just decided to finally leave a subpar restaurant. All this amidst a backdrop of potential criticism and perhaps a hint of irony. A room of leaders that acknowledge nothing, only basking in their own denial. Quite poetic, really.
The Irony of a Compromised Victory
So, what have we learned? Strategically, this deal might be a “win” for Prime Minister Schoof, who seems to have taken the reins—much like a reluctant substitute teacher in a chaotic classroom. Yet Geert Wilders will likely be feeling a bit miffed as he watches his popular emergency law proposal vanish. It’s almost Shakespearean, the tragic hero brought low not by enemies but by his own coalition partners.
Final Thoughts
This agreement is stark proof that in the world of politics, sometimes the most you can hope for is to juggle fire while riding a unicycle—hoping that the flames don’t engulf you entirely. Sure, it’s regulation mish-mash, but at least they’ve managed to talk for hours, right? Who knew so much talking could lead to so little! There’s always hope, though—hope that Minister Faber can somehow translate this vague agreement into actual policy that passes muster. So hold onto your hats, folks; it’s going to be one bumpy ride!
Ises.
Interview with Political Analyst, Dr. Sophie van Dijk
Editor: Good morning, Dr. van Dijk. Thanks for joining us. After a marathon session of negotiations, the coalition parties have announced changes to asylum measures. What do you make of this agreement?
Dr. van Dijk: Good morning! It’s quite a fascinating development, isn’t it? After hours of intense discussion, they have reached a compromise, but it shows the growing tensions within the coalition. The PVV’s insistence on the emergency law has been sidelined, which indicates a significant shift in power dynamics within the coalition.
Editor: You mentioned power dynamics. How do you view the roles of the parties involved, particularly the PVV and NSC?
Dr. van Dijk: The PVV, led by Geert Wilders, has suffered a setback by not getting the emergency law it wanted. This shows that the NSC, despite being less established, has managed to assert itself. The NSC’s opposition to the emergency law reflects the tension within the coalition, as it prioritizes stability over drastic measures. It’s quite a relief for their temporary leader, Van Vroonhoven, who had to navigate a lot of resistance.
Editor: What can we expect from these new asylum measures? Are they as strict as they seem?
Dr. van Dijk: Definitely. Enhancements such as abolishing asylum permits indefinitely and implementing border controls signify a much tougher stance on immigration. The limitations on family reunification and the declaration of parts of Syria as ‘safe’ are particularly contentious. The potential legal challenges that could arise from declaring certain regions safe will be interesting to watch.
Editor: Speaking of legal challenges, there are concerns about the implementation of these measures. What are your thoughts?
Dr. van Dijk: That’s the crux of the matter. While they’ve presented a united front today, the real test will be whether these measures can withstand scrutiny in courts and the Senate. The fact that they plan to introduce several legislative changes simultaneously is an attempt to avoid chaos, but it places significant pressure on the Minister of Asylum Seekers, who has a lot to prove given the previous missteps.
Editor: In terms of public perception, how is this agreement likely to be received?
Dr. van Dijk: I anticipate mixed reactions. While some will cheer stricter measures as necessary for national security, others may view them as draconian and counterproductive. The opposition parties are already gearing up to critique these developments, especially the implications for asylum seekers and human rights. It’s clear that this situation is nowhere near resolved, and it’s just the beginning of a larger debate.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. van Dijk, for your insights. It appears we have an intense political landscape ahead of us.
Dr. van Dijk: My pleasure. Yes, the political stage in the Netherlands is definitely heating up!
Re concerns about the feasibility of these measures in court. How might this play out for the coalition?
Dr. van Dijk: Yes, the legal ramifications could be quite significant. The coalition’s plans, particularly the assertion that parts of Syria are ‘safe,’ will likely face scrutiny in court. If these measures are challenged—as many legal experts anticipate—they may not hold up well under judicial review. This adds another layer of complexity for the coalition, which will undoubtedly feel pressured to ensure these policies not only pass legislation but also withstand legal challenges.
Editor: There’s a lot of talk about the coalition being successful in averting a crisis. What do you think this deal means for Prime Minister Schoof and his leadership going forward?
Dr. van Dijk: This agreement certainly gives Prime Minister Schoof a momentary boost, positioning him as a mediator who can broker compromises. However, his leadership will be continually tested. If the proposed measures fail to yield tangible results or face backlash from both the opposition and the public, he may find himself in a precarious position. This deal may have spared him from immediate collapse, but the future stability of his leadership hinges on the execution of these policies and their reception by voters.
Editor: It sounds like the coming weeks will be critical. What advice would you give to Minister Faber as she seeks to implement these measures?
Dr. van Dijk: Minister Faber will need to focus on clear communication and transparency to build public trust. Engaging with local municipalities ahead of the measures taking effect will be crucial for preventing chaos. Moreover, she must be prepared to address any public concerns swiftly. Given the contentious nature of the policies, proactive engagement will be key in trying to smooth over potential backlash.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. van Dijk, for your insights into this complex political landscape. We’ll certainly be following how this all unfolds in the coming days and weeks.
Dr. van Dijk: My pleasure! It’s certainly going to be an interesting ride. Thank you for having me!
