reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Demissionary Prime Minister Mark Rutte has been in office for thirteen years. It is unlikely that he would want to leave a legacy of aligning with the PVV's election program, as he aspires to top positions in the European Union or NATO. This could have consequences for his future, as some in Brussels believe that if the VVD were to form a coalition with Geert Wilders, Rutte's chances of becoming NATO's top leader or holding a position within the European Commission would be jeopardized. Therefore, Rutte's future prospects are at stake.

The speakers discuss the political situation surrounding Geert Wilders and the PVV. The first speaker suggests that if Wilders had participated in a debate, the other side might have won, and expresses frustration that “nothing happens in the Netherlands” right now. The dialogue turns to the nature of democracy within the parliament, with one speaker insisting that the parliament is “super democradig” while implying the PVV is not. The conversation questions the democratic legitimacy of the PVV, reinforcing that one speaker is not a member of the PVV in the traditional sense. A key point raised is the claim that there is “not a democratic club” for the PVV, contrasting their approach with the broader parliamentary system. The other speaker counters by noting that they are a member of the faction, not the party, highlighting a formal distinction: “Not of the party, because there is but one person and that is Geert Wilders himself.” This statement emphasizes a centralized leadership structure and suggests that the party’s organizational breadth is limited to a single figure at the top. The exchange also touches on the hypothetical impact of broader party membership, with a suggestion that if the PVV could assemble more members, it might be argued to be more democratic. Despite this, the speaker indicates that they will refrain from pursuing that argument in the current discussion. Throughout, the speakers grapple with how representation and democratic processes operate within the Netherlands’ political landscape, especially in relation to Wilders and the PVV. The dialogue conveys a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction about the state of politics, underscored by the assertion that a debate or more widespread participation could have changed outcomes, in contrast to the stagnation they perceive in the present moment.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

Speaker 1, the potential prime minister, would immediately close the Dutch borders to people from Islamic countries who do not adhere to Dutch laws and values. However, forming a coalition with other parties who do not share this stance poses a challenge. Speaker 1 also expresses skepticism about climate change, believing that humans have minimal impact on global warming. This viewpoint may hinder coalition-building. The speaker mentions other parties that could potentially form a coalition, but emphasizes the difficulties in finding common ground. The speaker also highlights the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that can occur to prevent the largest party from leading the coalition. They predict a similar outcome in the Netherlands.

Speaker 0 asked: "Zou dit dan zouden we dan dit gewoon moeten aanpassen? Zouden ze gewoon verplicht moeten zijn om om om die boeken te openen?" In other words, should this be adjusted, should they be obliged to open those books. Speaker 1 replied: "Ja goed, wat ik vind is dat als wij vinden dat Europa in een minivase van oorlog is, moet je overwegen bepaalde wetten erop aan te passen." They noted that there are today motions adopted regarding surveilling ("afluisteren") and regarding procurement procedures ("aankoopprocedures"). Then they added: "Dan zou dit ook het geval moeten zijn, want we hebben het in een iets verdere fase gewoon over verraad in plaats van nepnieuws." They acknowledged that there is talk of fake news, but for this kind of matters, during wartime people were hanged and executed ("we hebben het in een oorlog tijd opgehangen en geëxecuteerd"). Therefore, "Dus dat omslagpunt is wel iets wat je zorgvuldig moet bekijken en als overheid ook wat van mag zeggen." The speaker emphasized that this turning point should be considered carefully and that the government may have something to say. Speaker 1 then concluded: "Minister van Justitie kan het OM zeggen, misschien moet u er eens over nadenken het anders dan doen, want we hebben een andere situatie." This suggests the Minister of Justice could tell the Public Prosecutor's Office to rethink it, because "we have a different situation."

The speaker criticizes previous coalitions for not discussing the rule of law and constitution. They highlight instances where the rule of law and fundamental rights were disregarded, such as the treatment of parents involved in the childcare benefits scandal and the neglect of the Groningen gas damage. The speaker questions the hypocrisy of parties now advocating for rights during the pandemic when they previously supported separating doctors from patients and imposing lockdowns. They mention cases where loved ones were denied farewells, unvaccinated individuals were barred from cafes, and healthy young people were kept from school. The speaker emphasizes the importance of all fundamental rights and urges everyone to reflect on their actions.

The speaker discusses the importance of upholding the rule of law and criticizes the violation of it. They express the need for political parties to distance themselves from such actions. The speaker mentions two specific issues, namely the closure of mosques and the removal of the Quran, which they believe are impractical. They also mention the complications arising from the VVD party's decision to not form a coalition with the PVV party. The VVD initially expressed interest but later changed their stance based on polling numbers.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 0 expresses discomfort and believes it is inappropriate to have the conversation. Speaker 1 argues that using available tools is not inappropriate. Speaker 0 disagrees, emphasizing the potential interference with prosecutorial independence. Speaker 1 acknowledges Speaker 0's stance but mentions that the decision-maker is firm. Speaker 0 highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law and expresses uncertainty. Speaker 1 respects Speaker 0's perspective but is cut off. Speaker 0 hopes for understanding, mentioning an inappropriate conversation about jobs instead of legalities.

The speaker discusses the issue of job distribution within the government and criticizes the practice of giving positions to loyal individuals rather than qualified ones. They highlight the recent appointment of Hugo de Jonge as Minister of the Interior, despite his lack of experience in the field. The speaker expresses concerns about the lack of democracy and the erosion of civil liberties, particularly in relation to COVID-19 measures. They criticize the minister for refusing to engage in substantive debate and instead resorting to name-calling and dismissing opposing views as conspiracy theories. The speaker concludes by vowing to continue raising these concerns and advocating for transparency and accountability in government.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of forming a government. Speaker 1 mentions that Mrs. Jesus said they will not be ruling, but Speaker 0 clarifies that she meant they will not rule under a Wilders-led government. Speaker 1 adds that they may consider supporting but not participating in a cabinet. Speaker 0 questions if Mrs. Jesus was clear on this, but Speaker 1 believes she was. Speaker 0 suggests that they should have a serious conversation with Timmerman, potentially leading to a coalition with the VVD. Speaker 1 thinks Speaker 0 is jumping ahead and clarifies that they should at least have a conversation with Timmerman. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of not excluding any party, except for a coalition with the PvdA. They discuss the differences between parties and Speaker 0 rejects the notion that they are comparable to the PVV. Speaker 1 agrees and clarifies that they did not make that comparison.

The KNVB is closely watching the formation process and speculating on who will become the new prime minister. The concerns of many people are understood, such as the worries about housing and future prospects. However, there are also concerns among those who voted for other parties that are now involved in the negotiations. The speaker avoids answering whether a Wilders cabinet is likely, citing a difficult relationship with Geert Wilders and his party's divisive statements. The FNV will assess any coalition based on their actions and intentions, including the PVV's social-economic program. The FNV acknowledges the concerns of PVV voters but currently does not give the party a platform due to its divisive nature. The FNV aims to represent the interests of its members, regardless of the government's color.

A discussion about the controversial statements made by a political figure, Bosma, who proposed limiting the voting rights of Muslims in the Netherlands. The speaker expresses their disapproval of Bosma's views, citing his discriminatory and hateful opinions towards Islam and the judiciary. They also mention the importance of remaining neutral and above partisan politics. The discussion concludes with the speaker emphasizing the need to address these issues and their impact on the country's constitutional values.

Demissionary Prime Minister Mark Rutte has been in office for thirteen years. It is unlikely that he would want to leave a legacy of aligning with the PVV's election program, as he aspires to top positions in the European Union or NATO. This could have consequences for his future, as some in Brussels believe that if the VVD were to form a coalition with Geert Wilders, Rutte's chances of becoming NATO's top leader or holding a position within the European Commission would be jeopardized. Therefore, Rutte's future prospects are at stake.

The speaker discusses the legality of the state in the Netherlands, claiming that it became illegal after the royal family fled during World War II. They argue that the first government was not democratically elected, making subsequent governments illegitimate as well. They mention that this issue has been brought to the attention of the constitutional court in Belgium since the Netherlands lacks a constitutional court. The speaker also suggests that the current situation in the Netherlands is still influenced by the Nazi regime. They mention the power held by the Secretary General of Justice and the untouchability of Demink. They conclude by stating that the only solution is for another country with a constitutional court, like Belgium, to have jurisdiction over the Netherlands.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of words and how they can have significant consequences. They mention examples of extreme right-wing influence in Europe, such as in Sweden and Italy, where citizens' rights, particularly those of the LGBTQ+ community, have been restricted. The speaker warns against underestimating the impact of these actions and highlights the significance of respecting the constitution and democratic values in the Netherlands. They argue that by upholding these principles, the country can address issues in healthcare, education, and support those who have been neglected, like the victims of the benefits scandal. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the need to strengthen, rather than weaken, the democratic rule of law.

**Summary in Dutch:** Speaker 1 wil het hoofdlijnenakkoord openbreken, met name op het gebied van asiel. Hij stelt dat de huidige maatregelen onvoldoende zijn en dat Nederland een "groot AZC" dreigt te worden. Asielzoekers blijven langer en kosten meer dan arbeidsmigranten, die de staat vaak nog iets opleveren. Ondanks dat de PVV zich redelijk heeft opgesteld en concessies heeft gedaan, is hun geduld nu op. Kiezers zijn teleurgesteld over de resultaten van het asielbeleid. De wetten van Faber zijn nog niet doorgevoerd, maar zelfs als ze dat zijn, zullen ze niet genoeg zijn. Speaker 1 wil hardere maatregelen om de instroom te verminderen en de uitstroom te verhogen, en wijst erop dat andere Europese landen verdergaande maatregelen nemen. **Summary in English:** Speaker 1 wants to break open the main agreement, especially in the area of asylum. He argues that the current measures are insufficient and that the Netherlands is in danger of becoming a "large asylum center." Asylum seekers stay longer and cost more than labor migrants, who often still yield something to the state. Despite the PVV behaving reasonably and making concessions, their patience has now run out. Voters are disappointed with the results of the asylum policy. The Faber laws have not yet been implemented, but even if they are, they will not be enough. Speaker 1 wants tougher measures to reduce inflow and increase outflow, pointing out that other European countries are taking more far-reaching measures.

Speaker 0 questions Meneer Markushauer about why he could not become vice premier, implying it would have happened if it were up to Geert Wilders. The questions prompt whether he should ask Wilders about the matter and suggest that not everything passed the AIVD security check. The line of questioning then shifts to which foreign intelligence service Markushauer actually works for, asking him to declare whether he works for any foreign security service and specifically referencing the Turk. The questions continue to press: what foreign affiliation does he have, if any, and whether he has ties to a foreign intelligence agency. The speaker mentions the Stichting bij Leven en Welzijn and asks about firearms, suggesting this is a recurring topic in related groups. There is an insinuation that Denk might nominate a member of parliament who works for the Turkish security service, and the speaker urges Markushauer to answer plainly if there is nothing to hide. The conversation also notes that ANP (the news agency) wants an answer from Markushauer, signaling media interest in his affiliations and security clearance. The overall point is to probe Markushauer’s possible connections to foreign intelligence services, questions about his eligibility for high office based on security checks, and to obtain a clear admission or denial regarding any such affiliations, with an emphasis on transparency given political risk and media attention. The exchange presents a sequence of provocative questions intended to challenge Markushauer on loyalties, security vetting, and potential foreign influence, while underscoring public and media demand for clarification.

De spreker wijst erop dat Partue Wever voor een uitdaging staat: 'ik ga niet met Tom van Grieken in zee, maar wel met de andere partijvoorzitter die gezegd heeft dat Roma mensen bruin gespuisd zijn waar je met de matrak op moet slaan om ze buiten te jagen.' Deze uitspraak illustreert de polarisatie rondom samenwerkingskeuzes met leiders die dergelijke beschuldigingen doen. The speaker notes that Partue Wever faces a challenge to say: 'I will not go into partnership with Tom van Grieken, but with the other party leader who said that Roma people are brown scum that you should strike with a baton to drive them out.' This remark illustrates the polarization surrounding alliance choices with leaders who make such accusations.

Thank you for voting for the VVD. We will use your vote to make the Netherlands better. We aim to limit migration, support middle-income earners, help businesses, and build houses. We want to form a Center-Right coalition with PVG, NRC, and BBB, the three major winners. We take responsibility and will deliver on our promises. We will work towards a Center Bridge Cabinet from the Second Chamber. We understand the need for change and believe we can achieve more for you from the Chamber. We will also bring our own VVD proposals. We do not accept any compromise on the rule of law or the country's financial stability. We are open to discussions with PVG, NRC, and BBB to determine the best form of collaboration. We are ready to start talking.

The speaker discusses the situation where Maxime Wagen, who had previously advised against joining a cabinet, ended up doing so. The speaker clarifies that this situation is different from the current one, where the VVD's statement this morning is not a priority. They explain that in the past, the VVD and CDA disagreed with the PVV's view on Islam, while now the interpretation of the term "economic migrants" is being discussed. The speaker understands that the VVD may be hesitant to join a coalition with three winners and one significant loser. However, they also acknowledge that the VVD takes seriously the signals from both their voters and the PVV's voters, and is committed to forming a center-right government that benefits the Netherlands.

The PVV's win is a blow to democracy and value-driven politics. Wilders may try to portray himself as Mother Teresa, but his history of discrimination, exclusion, and demonizing opponents shows he has a long way to go to become more moderate. The country has spoken, but I speak for myself and find it concerning. Rob Jetten, our new party leader, has spoken clearly. Only 67% of people didn't vote for Wilders. The challenge is for him to prove he genuinely values tolerance, which we have yet to see. I'm not angry, I'm passionate. I'm concerned about the election result and whether he will change. No, he won't change. If he becomes prime minister, it will be through a coalition, not by my choice.

Dutch people want a leader who can unite the country, represent all citizens, and lead internationally. It seems unlikely that Mr. Wilders will form a coalition government with a majority. The choice tomorrow is significant: either a center-right government led by me, offering real solutions to the existing problems, or a left-leaning government with Timmermans' party.

Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, has been in office for thirteen years. It is unlikely that he would want to leave a legacy of aligning with the PVV's election program, as he aspires to top positions in the European Union or NATO. This could have consequences for his future prospects. People in Brussels have already made this connection, suggesting that if the VVD were to form a coalition with Geert Wilders' party, Rutte's chances of becoming NATO's top leader or holding a position within the European Commission could be jeopardized.