The 26-page accord of the newly formed Dutch far-right coalition has drawn significant attention, not only due to the contentious selection of the prime minister, but also for areas of potential conflict with the European Union on matters such as immigration and climate change. Despite initial doubts about Geert Wilders’ ability to navigate extended negotiations given his well-known extremist views, he demonstrated his resilience on Wednesday.
Throughout the extensive discussions, Wilders gradually abandoned some of his more contentious demands such as closing borders, Koran prohibition, EU exit, and cessation of arms dispatches to Ukraine, which had resulted in his firm victory in the general election in November last year. Consequently, an agreement was eventually reached.
Under the new coalition, Wilders’s Freedom Party, now the largest, has collaborated with the center-right VVD, whose leadership was taken over by Dilan Yesilgoz from Mark Rutte; the New Social Contract led by activist MP Pieter Omtzigt; and the farmer-citizen party, BBB, directed by Caroline van der Plas.
Although the new arrangement falls short of placing Wilders in the prime minister’s seat given his electoral figures from November, it has nonetheless allowed his Freedom Party to gain major influence in the government as the biggest among the four coalition parties, helmed by the most experienced of the group, thus yielding considerable sway.
While some observers posit that Wilders, known for his radical views, has been tamed through his engagement in conspicuous compromises meant to integrate him into the political mainstream, an examination of the agreement, grandly titled Hope, Courage, Pride, suggests otherwise. Wilders still manages to effectively find and influence common popular issues among his new allies.
Internationally, the incoming government plans to set legal precedence by committing to devote 2% of GDP to defence, meeting NATO’s expectations – a commitment Europe has often been criticized for failing to uphold, notably by ex-president Donald Trump.
Wilders’ stance on halting arms supplies to Kyiv has also found compromise in the coalition accord, which unambiguously states the Netherlands’ ongoing political, military, financial, and moral support to Ukraine against Russia’s hostile advances.
The upcoming governing coalition in the Netherlands, the most right-wing in many years, has a series of ambitious domestic plans. Among these are the construction of 100,000 homes per year, with social rentals making up about a third, as well as goals to limit property taxes, reduce healthcare co-payments, make childcare extensively more economical, and raise social security.
However, the two topical subjects of today’s era, immigration and climate change, see the impending coalition preparing the Netherlands for an outright conflict with Brussels even before its official establishment. Emphasising immigrant control, the coalition plans to adopt “the most severe asylum process” ever applied by the Dutch government. The coalition has caught many off-guard by announcing its intent to submit an opt-out clause for European migration and asylum policies to the European Commission as early as possible.
However, the commission is standing its ground, stating that the confirmed and accepted new pact on migration and asylum needs to be enforced. The developments concerning climate change policies are just as harsh for Brussels. The exiting government’s strategy to significantly cut CO2 emissions by 2030, by notably downsizing the national livestock herd through the enforced acquisition of about 11,200 farms, sparked protests from irate farmers.
Now, there will be no compulsory acquisitions. The coalition is reinstating the previously abolished lower-excise duty red diesel for farmers and reverting to the previous speed limits of 130km/h to address nitrogen emissions. Whether there is an appointed prime minister or not, it appears that The Hague is no longer receptive to EU directives.
Instead, the incoming right-wing coalition intends to “try everything” to “alter EU directives” which are no longer favourable. It remains a question where this influence originated from.